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 > General Discussion > What a hypocritical world we live in

What a hypocritical world we live in

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Man who shoots 4 kangaroos with a crossbow gets 12 months jail (see http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/22/2721354.htm?section=justin).

Yet professional shooters that do a "humane" kill get paid for it.

I'm no greenie, but the hypocrisy/inconsistency is breathtaking. Now, either killing wildlife is bad or it isn't. The fact is that if you do things a bit wrong as a rank amateur you get the book thrown at you, but if you're really good at doing something bad, you do a service to society. Where's the justice? Go figure.

Isn't it simply a case of society taking the path of least resistance as per usual and foisting its burgeoning anger on the softest and easiest target? How hypocritical does that make society?
Posted by RobP, Thursday, 22 October 2009 3:18:30 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
Who are professional shooters? Do you mean people who kill for food? Or something completely different?
Posted by robby22, Thursday, 22 October 2009 6:26:49 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
Dear RobP,

I thought that the guy who shot the roos with
a bow and arrow has not been sentenced as yet -
he's case is being appealed.

I believe the difference in his method of
killing (with the bow and arrow), was considered an
extremely cruel method as far as the animals
were concerned. They suffered terribly and took
a long time to die. He also shot an endangered
species. He didn't know what he was doing -
simply inflicting pain on the animals. He claimed
that he thought roos were "vermin," akin to rats
only bigger.

Whereas professional hunters - know what they're doing,
they don't shoot endangered species - and they shoot
and kill instantly.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 22 October 2009 7:26:48 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
>>Who are professional shooters? Do you mean people who kill for food? Or something completely different?<<

robby22,

I don't have anyone specific in mind, however it's not too hard to imagine that there are a range of people that you find in any industry - the good, the average and the bad. My real point is that while the guy that used the crossbow obviously has a screw or two loose, in the scheme of things he's an amateur that probably just needs a short, sharp rap to the knuckles, so to speak. A year in jail seems excessive and if he is just a little bit bad or stupid, he could easily come out of jail a whole lot more embittered and worse. But, who's really to know?

Foxy,

The other point is that there are a few bad people in the professional roo shooters fraternity that do it regularly and with impunity. When it comes to raw intent, they have it all over the fellow with the crossbow. Now, how you judge a person goes to intent in my opinion not how effectively the shooter actually kills, although the "professionalism" with which he does his job is a side benefit in terms of the suffering of the animal. My real point is that society, through its justice system, should try and make sure that the penalties imposed are proportionate to the actual crimes.

I reckon even the professional roo shooters slightly miss their targets from time to time and leave the roos to die a slow painful death. Does anyone ever bother to check? For example, does the ordinary Joe actually care or jump around like a banshee when it's a "professional" out on a property who's leaving the animal in such a state?
Posted by RobP, Thursday, 22 October 2009 8:08:15 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
I'd like to know where the 'endangered species' come from.

Also, it is thought that an animal shot with an arrow dies a much more peacefull death (provided it is a clean shot) as they simply beed to death, whereas when shot with a bull they die from shock as the bullet is not what kills, it is in fact the 'shock waves' that are cast from the bullet that kills in many cases.
Posted by rehctub, Thursday, 22 October 2009 9:09:30 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
moral relativism always leads to hypocrisy.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 22 October 2009 9:43:40 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
RobP,
The professional shooters are those that supply the roo meat industry.

They head shoot the roos with high powered rifles that have high powered scopes and are extremely accurate. Like all shots in a 1" group at 100metres. They cannot sell the carcase if body shot.

Not good example of hypocracy. Try our politicians if you want hypocracy.

We have laws against FGM and the incidence is increasing yet no person has ever been charged. Evidence is available from hospitals that treat post FGM problems. On the other hand they often raid and charge people holding cock fights. Forced marriages are also banned but no one has ever been charged, anothe case of blind eye.

Whats the difference between the latest 'Indonesian solution' for the illegal immigrants and the previous governments 'Pacific solution' It will stop the boats coming but little difference. You want hypocracy. Where are all those now that were so critical of the previous government about this. Many well known names and celebraties and not a peep out of them now. Thats hypocracy!

There is hypocracy everywhere you look in government.
Posted by Banjo, Thursday, 22 October 2009 9:57:51 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
As far as I know, professional shooters are generally very accurate (after all, bullets cost money; wasting bullets erodes your profits), and have a vested interest, as well as a regulatory requirement, in killing an animal as quickly and cleanly as possible.

Even some of those on the "green" side of things, such as Tim Flannery, have conceded that kangaroo harvesting is better, both environmentally and humanely, than other forms of animal husbandry. After all, the kangaroo is left to its own devices in the wild, until one night there's a bright light, a bang, and it's goodnight, nurse.

A vegetarian or vegan might have some grounds to argue against the 'roo industry, but I'd point out that plenty of animals died to bring that organic carrot to the table ... or don't the bugs the farmer killed to protect his crop count as animals?

"'Well,' said the animal, 'I know many vegetables that are very clear on that ..." - Douglas Adams, "The restaurant at the End of the Universe".

Doing an unpleasant but necessary job is one thing; inflicting pain and suffering on an animal simply for enjoyment is quite another.
Posted by Clownfish, Thursday, 22 October 2009 10:19:53 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
Banjo,

I agree there are better examples of hyprocrisy, but I thought this particular case stood out like a sore thumb in terms of how one particular individual was somewhat scapegoated by the system. This could be the reason why the case was so prominent in the media.

Re shooters with high-powered rifles, all it takes is for the kangaroo to move its head slightly at the time of the shot and it is shot in the jaw rather than the brain, manages to hop away a few hundred metres and dies a slow death. I don't believe there are no such cases in the industry although there probably aren't many these days.

Clownfish,

If the guy did shoot the roo with a sense of pathological enjoyment, then this goes very much to intent and he's the sort of person that needs to be looked at much more closely by the justice system.
Posted by RobP, Friday, 23 October 2009 10:36:19 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
Punishment by way of community service should have been awarded instead of a long custodial sentence. For comparison, a first offender who stabs or brutally beats an innocent victim (human) might walk free with a fine and warning.

It was a foolish act by an irresponsible idiot and yes, the punishment is excessive and some of the summing up by the judge is questionable, raising a possible host of new charges by police in all sorts of circumstances where they choose to do so.

It is political correctness at work: furry animals are always delightful and are probably more 'valuable' than a human life. Must be, because many thousands of dollars can be spent on a futile 'rescue' mission for a macropod, but human patients wait years and may die before treatment is provided at a hospital.

However the community does accept the slow death often inflicted by indigenous people on animals (spears must be OK, but arrows are not!) and also other acts of cruelty - ever seen the state of dogs in some communities? Plainly the RSPCA chooses its targets and that is hypocrisy. It is also hyprocisy that multiculturalism regularly turns a blind eye towards similar grievous treatment of children, excusing it saying it is 'necessary' and 'understandable'. There is the usual example in the papers today http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26248782-952,00.html:
Posted by Cornflower, Friday, 23 October 2009 11:23:12 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
As someone who kills animals in course of a) providing food b) euthanasing sick/injured animals c) destroying vermin - the important factor is kill swiftly and cleanly. While having few reservations about use of any animal species as a food source deem it essential that high standards of animal husbandry for domesticated species are practised and domestic or wild, for food, control or sport, the animal despatched humanely.

Roos - endangered species? Roos are one native species to do quite well out of European settlement. West of the Divide grazing activity has established improved pasture and numerous permanent water points. Both factors have allowed kangaroos to flourish.

I believe jail terms are appropriate in instances of sadistic torture and profound cruelty to animals. What I find 'hypocritical' is where thugs who set upon innocents (looked at them the wrong way or just wrong time/place), leaving victims with scars, broken bones and sometimes permanent damage get away with suspended sentences or good behaviour bonds. Ditto ratbags who constantly defy DVOs.

Also teenage rampagers who parents CAN'T control - not because they lack interest or don't try, but because LAW protects the little bastards from parental discipline and allows them free rein to pursue antisocial/criminal behaviour.

EG - 'Darling' does a runner, moves in with older riffraff, roams streets committing petty crime and putting themselves at high risk, Dad & Mum find the absconder, grab him/her, bundle into car and take home, lock in room - well prepare for charges of assault, false imprisonment, child abuse ...... Happened to female acquaintance - 13 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER, mother was not 'allowed' to control her. Ended up abandoning child, moving to another town as she feared for younger child and influence the older one might exert. I have heard other stories along similar lines

At the same time - a PARENT is supposed to be responsible for their CHILD until age 18 and could well find themselves paying compensation for criminal damage their offspring has caused. Now that's HYPOCRACY
Posted by divine_msn, Friday, 23 October 2009 11:32:04 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
RobP,
The bloke that was charged left the animals wounded and apparently did not follow up. Vets treated two of them and one died. I have no sympathy for him as he deserved the sentence.

Just a pity you chose this as an example of hypocricy as there is plenty about.

I do not want to get into a debate with you about high velocity firearms and their knock down power. I have shot foxes professionally, all head shot so as not to damage pelts, and I can tell you that the shock power of a high velocity bullet in any part of the head of a roo will kill it.

No excuse for the idiot that was charged, his behaviour was worse than poor. I would not mind at all if the appeals court increased the penalty.
Posted by Banjo, Friday, 23 October 2009 12:12:59 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
Where was the 'sadistic torture' in this case? As far as the reports go, he was hunting a protected species illegally and his tools and competence were not adequate to the purpose.

Real hunters, farmers and the like would wince and be highly critical of his stupidity and wilful disregard for the law and some might even like to flog him with his own quiver for his lack of ethics and concern for the target animal, but at the end of the day there has to be a measure of relativity in the sentence given by a court.

That is why I believe that the over-the-top penalty panders to animal rights activists. The penalty is way beyond what might be expected for first offender assaults on other humans and that is most concerning.

divine-msn
Have you read the judge's words carefully, because you could easily end up in the pokey if your culling shot does not result in immediate collapse and loss of unconsciousness of your target animal. The animal rights activists must be chortling at the opportunities for mayhem that gives them.

Look at it in terms of risk analysis, isn't it the case that despite the best efforts of all concerned it is unreasonable to expect that all animals will die 'immediately' and a finishing shot will sometimes be necessary. What is so wrong with that? In the subject case the 'hunter' was incompetent, ill-informed and casual about the law so he got done for it. However he should not have been dealt with so severely and the judge's wording leaves a lot to be desired. Judges make mistakes too.

It is worth remembering though that all we have are the press reports and not all of the evidence that was before the court.
Posted by Cornflower, Friday, 23 October 2009 12:41:32 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
RobP,

The hypocrisy would exist if the didn't throw the book. Why have a licensing system if it's not going to be enforced.

Why the licenses? to try and reduce the yobs that think they're game hunters, get a skin full and shoot everything with fur/wool.
Then there are hunting magazines that encourage 'hunting'(?) with a Bowie knife "for the true experience Man Versus Beast".

It's a bit like booking a non licensed racer on the highway. Rules are there to stop the idiots (well reduce them).
12 months jail? seems a bit excessive but do the crime do the time.
not a lot of sympathy
Posted by examinator, Friday, 23 October 2009 5:15:25 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
I consider the shooting of an unarmed marsupial if not for food to be idiotic in the extreme. Repulsive and needless criminal madness.

When you head down the jetty with a fishing rod on a Saturday afternoon and the blowies are off on vacation for the weekend, and you happen to catch a few herring to cook up for the meal, and maybe share a few fillets with your neighbours, then there's still a little natural human nature to explain you're trickery, and it's a fairly good effort if you don't ask the opinions of the fish.

That aside, even working for pay on a beef farm can be looked upon as mercenary, and not for the feint-hearted, and if what you kill is not purely about feeding your family, then it's a fine line between some sort of safari tour-guide and something not quite as nice to speak of.
Posted by Etham, Friday, 23 October 2009 8:17:48 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
Etham

Don't fret, meat is grown on the bubblewrap plant by Coles and Woolies and no cuddly animals are hurt in the process.

Herring?! They are not cute and cuddly now are they and they are usually raised in cans. Not like baby seals or dolphins (pauses to touch a Kleenex to the misty eyes while reaching for the chequebook for a donation to charity).

That reminds me - when talking about mercenary how could you forget PETA? Can't see how Aussie farmers could ever be described as mercenary ahead of that lot.

There is a lot of responsibility, care and kindness in farming but you might need to remove those animal rights tinted glasses to see it.
Posted by Cornflower, Friday, 23 October 2009 9:25:38 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
Cornflower - I'm with you. On a property plus raised on the land in a very 'self-sufficient' family. Yes I can shoot straight but like you say there is the odd occasion. And I have always felt like a bastard when a second bullet was necessary. These days when you have to jump through 50 hoops to have firearms and carrying one is a crime unless its inside 3 locked boxes with ammo and bolt separate there was recent occasion when a large shifter had to suffice to destroy a kangaroo with broken legs .... Can hear the cries of 'brutality' already but one well-aimed whack to the head vs slow death from exposure and dehydration?

Didn't read the article, sorry, so don't know the circumstances of the case in question. Perhaps I should visit the link ...

Anyway is my belief a custodial sentence is appropriate for calculated extreme animal cruelty - not necessarily this case. Next paragraphs lamented soft treatment by judges of perpetrators of criminal assault (If some dude gets 12 months for wounding a couple of roos and leaving them to die then someone who attacks another person and injures them severely should get 10 times that - but it doesn't happen) and inconsistancies that parents have to face nowadays if their child derails and they're trying to get them back on track.

Yes, plenty wacko elements within the animal activist camps. Also the STUPIDITY of some 'rescues' featured on popular 'reality' TV shows has had me gob-smacked.

Stopped giving to the RSPCA about 8 years ago when they ran campaign to outlaw tail docking. Figured if that was how they were using my donation then goodbye. Another bit of hypocracy - tail docking newborn pups (tradition based on perceived benefit to dogs purpose)'cruel' but circumsizing baby boys (based on tradition/religious belief) 'OK' - and hey I'm not going to argue this - just pointing out an inconsistancy :-)

LOL and the poster who referred to indigenous hunting methods - how true. No hurry to finish the job, but that's culture eh!
Posted by divine_msn, Friday, 23 October 2009 11:44:02 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
divine_msn

I don't see why any hunter should feel awful because a second shot was necessary. What would that take in seconds? The readiness and capacity to do that is one of the things that puts a gulf of difference between the subject idiot who wounded macropods and hunters, not to mention the ethics of the hunter.

The subject idiot knew nothing about shot placement, obviously used the wrong projectile (suitable broadheads are available), could not get a second 'finisher' in and (what would really anger hunters) allowed an animal to escape injured. All of that on top of the illegalities of where he was (in a suburb) and what he was shooting without permit.

This is the sort of sad, incompetent, uncaring slob who has no respect for his quarry nor the environment generally.

Responsible law-abiding hunters (including bow hunters) and gun owners should feel no responsibility for fools like that and they certainly should not be apologetic for what they do themselves. I have yet to meet a licensed gun owner who wilfully disregarded the law or had contempt for the environment - quite the opposite in fact.

Many car drivers break laws daily, putting themselves and others at risk, yet no-one ever seriously suggests they should lose their licence forever, be given a massive fine and have their vehicle confiscated. Yet those are the extreme penalties that can apply to a licensed gun owner for even minor 'infringements' that could never put anyone at risk.

I guess no-one should feel too sorry for the idiot who loosed arrows into the roos - had he been licensed the penalty could have been well in excess what he received. Guess he was 'smart' not being licensed and having an unregistered crossbow. What amazing regulations (not!).
Posted by Cornflower, Saturday, 24 October 2009 11:31:31 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
Cornflower - I feel bad if I do not kill outright with one bullet - it's just me. Although almost all my life I have been accustomed to killing animals for food, my family was one that believed domestic animals were one of Gods blessings and were always to be treated humanely. Everything else was God's creation and had to be respected. To kill anything without reason was sinful. Hence my abhorrence of cruelty.

Even hunting for sport and vermin control, pigs mainly, still the same. Preferred to shoot rather than stick - though that had something to do with my inherent distrust of large boars. Mind you the dogs never liked it. I guess the report from a 243 at close range is hard on canine nerves :-)

Gun laws are a farce. We licensed owners are made to feel like criminals while the criminals have absolutely no problems getting their hands on all manner of weaponry. Likewise my neighbour, whose partner was not a stable woman plus substance abuser, had his firearms confiscated when, upon being told to leave and never come back, she took out a DVO on him. Despite no evidence of abuse - by him anyway - and affidavits of several witnesses concerning her behaviour plus their 10 yr old son who refused to go anywhere with his mother, he still had a devil of a time getting them back. This was a huge problem as he had mobile butcher business. Her eldest son (who knew Mum was a fruitcake) was able to take possession of the guns and worked with my neighbour until it got sorted - 8 months!

Must say I expected a stream of vitriol because of 1)admitting killing a mangled roo with a shifter because the rifle that would have been behind the seat in another era was in a gun cabinet at home and 2) agreeing with another poster that it doesn't seem to be 'cruelty' when indigenous hunters are involved.

Disappointing! Where are the accusations of brutality and that good old catchcry RACISM?
Posted by divine_msn, Saturday, 24 October 2009 10:13:52 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
I think it's fair to say that anyone who wants to shoot a roo MUST be required to get a hunting license and to respect all hunting regulations and procedures that these imply, or at least consult some wildlife authorities to request permission.

You simply CANNOT let amateur people kill whatever wild animals they want if the closest to "knowing what they're doing" is to point their weapon in the (unknown) animals direction and squeeze the trigger- or spot it on the road and try to run it down with their ute.

Such actions should ONLY be handled by persons who at least have the skill to kill it swiftly, and more importantly, actually have the capacity to identify WHAT species it is (a common species or a very similar-looking endangered species).

I once saw a fat, grey rat in the forest a long time ago- I thought it was a feral rat until it HOPPED away.
Posted by King Hazza, Sunday, 25 October 2009 1:15:28 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. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

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