Hamster Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 It depends, not all anti's are as fervently bombastic about the killing for fun bit, some are anti class some anti killing some are plain misinformed. There are examples of anti's coming round to accepting the overall picture once they are shown how the whole package works. The point here is that there are certain types of killing that repulse hunters and shooters themselves. Game shooting is one where the means justify the end ( I know it's the other way round usually ), tower shoots as we have witnessed are an end in themselves which have bypassed the initial journey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
utectok Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 I'm guessing vipa is against put and take stocked fisheries too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Munzy Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 I've no doubt they'll see the difference, but if you believe it will alter the fact that they will still regard what you do as killing for 'sport' then frankly you're deluded. Spot-on! It seems to me there are two discussions here, firstly the morality of killing anything for entertainment and secondly which is morally better, this US thing or a drive shoot. With regards the first; any anti would see both activities as equally wrong because they both involve killing for enjoyment. Simple. They would have a completely equal view of bullfighting, fox hunting and competition spear fishing too. "Hurting animals for fun is wrong whichever way you do it", would be my mum's view (the old meat-eating hypocrite anti bless 'er)! The second discussion should lead any "open-minded" anti to say that the UK driven shoot is less cruel as the bird is less stressed throughout. They should be able to rank any "blood sport" in order of cruelty and say A is better than B but that they're both wrong. In my view the end result is the same (dead birds for enjoyment) so as a guy who supports game shoots I would be a hypocrite to point the finger too harshly at these Americans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 (edited) I'm guessing vipa is against put and take stocked fisheries too? I don't know what that is so can't comment Edited October 23, 2013 by Vipa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
utectok Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 Well you breed and grow trout (usually rainbow a non native species) then when they are a good size put them in a loch or pond and fish them out again to kill and eat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepasty Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 I'm guessing vipa is against put and take stocked fisheries too? Jesus christ! are you not taking in what the mans saying!? He's not against it he simply doesnt agree with it.... two very different things! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penelope Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 A trout fishery with fish stocked at a takable (sp) size/weight, that is regularly stocked with said fish as and when fish are caught, killed and removed. I don't know what that is so can't comment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 Spot-on! It seems to me there are two discussions here, firstly the morality of killing anything for entertainment and secondly which is morally better, this US thing or a drive shoot. With regards the first; any anti would see both activities as equally wrong because they both involve killing for enjoyment. Simple. They would have a completely equal view of bullfighting, fox hunting and competition spear fishing too. "Hurting animals for fun is wrong whichever way you do it", would be my mum's view (the old meat-eating hypocrite anti bless 'er)! The second discussion should lead any "open-minded" anti to say that the UK driven shoot is less cruel as the bird is less stressed throughout. They should be able to rank any "blood sport" in order of cruelty and say A is better than B but that they're both wrong. In my view the end result is the same (dead birds for enjoyment) so as a guy who supports game shoots I would be a hypocrite to point the finger too harshly at these Americans. Can't argue with any of that. Good post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 Well you breed and grow trout (usually rainbow a non native species) then when they are a good size put them in a loch or pond and fish them out again to kill and eat. The normal methods of catching fish on their journey from egg to plate, whether it be commercially or recreationally are by line and/or net... so, there is no change there. in fact farming the trout in this way is preferable to decimating natural stocks so, no, don't have any issue with that. At commercial course fisheries, it's usually a catch and return rule any way isn't it? You are now trying to compare apples with tractors to, presumably convince yourself? that you are right? The correct analogy to what you have written there would be possibly breed the trout and then try shooting them in the water as targets.. or to look at it from another angle, breeding pheasant for the table and dispatching them by necking or decapitating.. The purpose of breeding the pheasants in game shooting IS NOT to put food on the table, it is to provide living targets.. the fact some of the birds get eaten is a by product of the process. Thank you thepasty... I sometimes wonder if some people can actually read! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penelope Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 The principal is the same as the one regarding pheasants. The trout are bred and reared purely to be caught and killed for entertainment. The waters that are used for 'put and take' are man made, generally for that purpose, so no wild stock to decimate. The normal methods of catching fish on their journey from egg to plate, whether it be commercially or recreationally are by line and/or net... so, there is no change there. in fact farming the trout in this way is preferable to decimating natural stocks so, no, don't have any issue with that. At commercial course fisheries, it's usually a catch and return rule any way isn't it? You are now trying to compare apples with tractors to, presumably convince yourself? that you are right? The correct analogy to what you have written there would be possibly breed the trout and then try shooting them in the water as targets.. or to look at it from another angle, breeding pheasant for the table and dispatching them by necking or decapitating.. The purpose of breeding the pheasants in game shooting IS NOT to put food on the table, it is to provide living targets.. the fact some of the birds get eaten is a by product of the process. Thank you thepasty... I sometimes wonder if some people can actually read! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepasty Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 (edited) so no wild stock to decimate. Do you know what they feed to farmed fish?.... Wild stock! Edited October 23, 2013 by thepasty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 (edited) The principal is the same as the one regarding pheasants. The trout are bred and reared purely to be caught and killed for entertainment. The waters that are used for 'put and take' are man made, generally for that purpose, so no wild stock to decimate. I think I understand but dont feel the two can be compared.. what does the fisherman generally do with the fish he has caught and killed? I see the argument here but (pardon the pun) it holds no water... if we go down that route then where do we stop? maggot farms breeding flies to then be used as bait by fishermen? is that cruel to the flies? Edited October 23, 2013 by Vipa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penelope Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 Eat it generally, give it away and some known as 'fishmongers' have been known to sell on their catch. much the same as game shoots and shooters really. I think I understand but dont feel the two can be compared.. what does the fisherman generally do with the fish he has caught and killed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penelope Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 A conversion rate of 1.5-2kg of marine protein (wild marine fish) required to produce 1kg of rainbow trout. Do you know what they feed to farmed fish?.... Wild stock! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 (edited) Eat it generally, give it away and some known as 'fishmongers' have been known to sell on their catch. much the same as game shoots and shooters really. Hmmm.. the game shooters I know tend to go to a shoot, kill a hundred birds or so and then walk away, possibly with a brace, but generally not How the hell this has managed to derail to fishing god only knows... you know full well there is no feasible comparison between the two! Edited October 23, 2013 by Vipa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penelope Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 And the rest are??? On all of the commercial type shoots that I have been on over the years have sold on the surplus that the guns/beater have not taken, to a game dealer. Hmmm.. the game shooters I know tend to go to a shoot, kill a hundred birds or so and then walk away, possibly with a brace, but generally not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 (edited) I haven't made any comparisons with anything other than my made up driven deer shoot!At risk of repeating my self YET AGAIN (do people honestly just jump on a thread and start bashing away at the last post?!) I find the idea of breeding animals with the sole intention of using them as live targets and Shooting them for fun morally repugnant and just a tad inhumane, not to mention sinister.. It matters not where the birds end up, on the table, in the pit, in a landfill (and please don't insult my intelligence by telling me this doesn't happen!) The tell-tale sign should be the price of a brace of shot pheasant vs the cost of rearing the birds up to the point they are shot..My response to the OP was based on the observation that taking the decision to breed animals as live targets is about as morally low as it gets so then to criticise those based on how they present the targets after that point is, in my view, hypocritical. The comment was made based on that, not against game shooting per se.Why do people insist on arguing with me on my morals? Edited October 23, 2013 by Vipa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon6ppc Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 well tim you definatley got this lot at it again ha ha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRNDL Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 (edited) well tim you definatley got this lot at it again ha ha it makes a good read. I mite bump back my Red diesel/Vosa thread..... Edited October 23, 2013 by BRNDL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepasty Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 I haven't made any comparisons with anything other than my made up driven deer shoot! (do people honestly just jump on a thread and start bashing away at the last post?!) yes! they are so keen to get their oar in! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 I haven't made any comparisons with anything other than my made up driven deer shoot! At risk of repeating my self YET AGAIN (do people honestly just jump on a thread and start bashing away at the last post?!) I find the idea of breeding animals with the sole intention of using them as live targets and Shooting them for fun morally repugnant and just a tad inhumane, not to mention sinister.. It matters not where the birds end up, on the table, in the pit, in a landfill (and please don't insult my intelligence by telling me this doesn't happen!) The tell-tale sign should be the price of a brace of shot pheasant vs the cost of rearing the birds up to the point they are shot.. My response to the OP was based on the observation that taking the decision to breed animals as live targets is about as morally low as it gets so then to criticise those based on how they present the targets after that point is, in my view, hypocritical. The comment was made based on that, not against game shooting per se. Why do people insist on arguing with me on my morals? You should re- read your first post for the comparison you made. Morals are each to his own, bit like religeon and politics, topics not for discussion. I think it was you first mentioned morals in this context but I could be wrong. I am quite at ease with my comments thus far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Munzy Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 Morals are each to his own, bit like religeon and politics, topics not for discussion. Morals are indeed a personal thing but should ALWAYS be up for discussion! We should always discuss and debate the things we hold close to our hearts, it's how a society can improve. Got to agree to disagree sometimes though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 Morals are indeed a personal thing but should ALWAYS be up for discussion! We should always discuss and debate the things we hold close to our hearts, it's how a society can improve. Got to agree to disagree sometimes though! Ok Munzy should have inserted 'usually' in between, not and, for - take your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Munzy Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 Ok Munzy should have inserted 'usually' in between, not and, for - take your point. No worries mate... I'd of just disagreed with you if not anyway! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
utectok Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 (edited) The principal is the same as the one regarding pheasants. The trout are bred and reared purely to be caught and killed for entertainment. That's what I thought to Edited October 23, 2013 by utectok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts