Lets define some stuff first...
Hunter - Well you get that, self evident.
Huntress - Well same thing except female. FWIW I see the pursuit of hunting as gender neutral, just as I see the term farmer gender neutral. I don't believe in "farmer's wife" if she's part of the farming operation, she's a farmer too. I don't believe in "hunter's wife" unless the wife does not hunt & I think a woman who hunts is hunting, not huntressing. If you use the term huntress though its ok with me, just splitting the hairs a bit.
Fishing - Well you're trying to catch fish which is of course a form of hunting...odd though that some fishermen or "fishers" don't call or see themselves as hunters. No dramas either way.
Illegal Hunters - Pretty obvious again, people hunting where they shouldn't which in most cases is breaking the law which is why I don't like the term "illegal hunters" cos I'd prefer to see them well separated from proper hunters who are law abiding people. As a hunter, don't lump me in with them, makes it just that little tiny bit easier for those wishing to ban hunting. There's a better name for those who hunt illegally, its the only name I use for them. To me they are...
Poachers - People who break the law and hunt illegally. You may have done it before, don't care about then, concerned about now & forever...make sure you're a law abiding legal hunter. Separate your lawful pursuit from those that break the law at every opportunity. Look to condemn and oppose "poaching" when ever the chance arises. Mention poachers aren't hunters, they're criminals. Why? Same reason the Drag Racing fraternity say "Street Racing isn't Drag Racing, its just dumb"
Drag racing happens at properly built tracks and is run formally and legally in the safest possible environment. Street racing is illegal can more easily kill them and/or innocent people. Same deal, distance yourself from poaching, make your hunt legal and lawful and you then give opponents one less thread to pull.
I'd define some of the hunting opponents but who knows where the language would go ;-)
Now, the view.
What is wrong with hunting? Well if you 're a tribesman somewhere nothing really. In fact very few people get wound up about it. Now if indigenous people around the world are allowed to "morally" be fine with continuing their cultural tradition I'm in a very happy place in the world.
Hunting in my family goes back longer than we can account for. My race is actually irrelevant, fact is if one person is ok to hunt culturally so am I. Long as I obey the law of the land there is no moral problem, nothing to seek mental counselling over, I'm good to go. If you're a hunter, become a good shot. If that means hitting paper targets or some other drill, do it. The better shot you are, the better the chances of encasing hunting as a normal part of every day life. Be seen to be practising, be precise and careful with your firearm or bow...fuss over it.
What will some people who oppose hunting say & how do we respond?
Simple...respond calmly. If you're hunting an animal you don't launch out of a trench with fixed bayonet screaming at the top of your lungs. Nope, you study your prey, you stay concealed, control your breathing after going through all the things you do and gently pull the trigger as calmly as you can to try and get the best, cleanest shot you can. You want the dispatching of an animal to be quick, clean and hopefully with it never knowing what hit it. Cleary you can't sedate it in its sleep, this all happens in the wild but you do put effort into the cleanest shot possible. Some folk are better than others with this, get used to it. Soooo why would you do any different to one of your worst critics???
A critic that would clearly prefer to stir you up so you lose your lolly, raise your voice, throw away your temper and hurl abuse. Once you're in that place, YOU are the quarry and YOU are in the THIER sights. You are on toast because it makes their job of demonising you far too easy. You keep your cool, know your subject, defend it properly and at some point if need be inform them "I'm doing nothing wrong at all by being a hunter and nothing I can say will change your mind, its now we must part, there is no point continuing the discussion because both of us are steadfast and I don't need to vent my spleen or blow off steam. Have a nice day" Whilst you may not EVER convince hunting is fine, you might convince the person/s standing next to them watching you're not an unreasonable monster, a thug or a verbal bully. You may well begin to appear to others to not quite tally with the blood thirsty murderer tag your accuser had previously levelled. How you conduct yourself is how people will judge you. People are not fools, eventually some will see their extremist friend as being a very unreasonable person. If they ever have a fall out, its not something they're going to think about, but you could possibly rate higher than the extremist. Many of the extremists are Rebels Without A Clue, going through their young angry stage. It will pass. If you hurl abuse you are fully and most likely permanently situated on the monster thug list. Remember its very emotive for them, if you remain cool, calm and collected like you might in the field you are miles in front. Robert Borsak once asked an extremist "Can't you intellectualise it?"
What did he mean? Its real simple. The extremist has a view, a view they're passionate, extremely passionate about. They're emotionally involved and highly strung over it. They have arrived at a position and push the daylights out of the position, but unable to simply say WHY it is what they think? No its a little more than that even. Many will not want to sit down and converse at length so you can explore not what they believe but why, what's it all based on.
Why is that? Ahh simple, I'm no brain surgeon. I'm a dumb ol' ploughboy/cowboy at best on a good day but I do know one thing if you say something is very very wrongon all sorts of emotional levels, you ought to be able to got through every nut & bolt of your position to explore & explain...and if you want to stay on Rant Level 10 & avoid (as Robert put it) trying to intellectualise it then you have a serious problem.
a) You don't understand it past emotional thought bubble and placard slogans
b) You're actually afraid of what will be laid bare, possibly the extremist is actually intolerant and very wrong.
But they mention morals - Yes be aware you will come across a lot of terms, phrases and words which are not relevant to what you're doing. Opponents will pull unrelated issues over to help oppose your hunting position because they need to bolster what is a failing argument. "Seriously thing" ? you bet, be aware and respond accordingly as you would in the bush.
Morals or hunting is immoral is one of the biggies, so to is murder, sentient beings, rights of the animals...so we need to go through them one at a time, nice and slow.
Murder - I usually ask under what statute is it murder because that's a criminal charge that a person is held account for when taking the life of another human. No one who took the life of an animal whilst legally hunting has ever been convicted on a murder charge. If I was called a murderer I would take great issue with that, I would then have been called guilty, convicted and sentence to a serious criminal charge. Its factually wrong, its accusing me of serious crime and its just plain dumb nonsense. You'll know straight away the person opposing hunting is using emotive language designed to shock, upset and then rally other totally indifferent people to agree with what they hate. Seriously I try not to use the word hate about things or people I don't agree with, but I do hate peas and asparagus. I support the farmers that grow it right up to the consumers that enjoy it. My hate is with me for me...not as a tool to shut down a form of horticulture or farming of vegetables that actually don't affect me at all.
Sentient beings - If you're not read any other blog spoutings from me, well you probably missed this explainer before so we'll try to tackle it...briefly if we can. Animal Rights people will claim its a sentient being and deserves to live without pain or suffering. They extend this further to oppose all forms of animal farming, pet ownership (unless its their own pet), manufacture of any products made or derived from animals and then the biggy...they oppose meat as food. Animal Welfare (AW) seeks to improve the welfare of the animal within the idea that animals are not humans and some are food. Animal Rights (AR) seeks to free all animals, turn everyone vegan and live at one with nature. Yep there's some bad acid dropping going on there. Extended to its full extend, we sit on a rock and do nothing to help nor hinder the animal, eat grass and make clothes out of hessian.
Thing is, "sentient", "sentience" and "Sentient beings" are not terms from science, they are terms from philosophy. Like a lot of philosophical ideas, some (for some people) get taken to the next level and a cult or worldview evolves. The premise is that a sentient being is an animal that feels pain and pleasure therefore it has inferred rights to be free of pain and the ability to feel pleasure and live its life unhindered by us. Who gave the rights? Ahh they're inferred. Who inferred them first? Ahh we don't know but we can track this all back long before Peter Singer and others. In fact we can find philosophical traces nearly 200 years ago and its not been refined a great deal since then. My view, its still being invented.
So we have animals that because they feel, have rights that no one gave them but somehow without any basis these rights do exist even though they're not quantified or formalised properly yet. Oooook.
If you believe that I gotta bridge in Sydney you just have to buy.
Hunting is ok, its neither moral or immoral. Its not murder just like the lion killing the antelope isn't murdering or being moral/immoral. In the case of duck season and number of programmes like "Farmer Assist" where hunters are helping farmers by hunting on properties to get feral numbers down. Will it eradicate ferals?
Probably not, but every dead fox, wild dog or wild car is a win. As most of the hunters do this at their own cost, there is no other cost efficient solution that even comes close.
Sunday 24 May 2015
Ricky, Ricky, Ricky...what the???
Yeah Rick Gervais weighed into the whole young lady shooting the giraffe thing. Weighed in heavily, as heavily and thorough as you can on Twitter's 140 character tirade limit.
Here's some things, I might be wrong, but I think he's promoting Brand Gervais as much as anything. Lets face it for an ageing comic hack, you gotta stay current, raise a twitter storm. Job done. Job done easier when your short messages are acid laced and provide no real depth of knowledge, experience or understanding...let alone research.
I googled online, not the best research tool, but it seems better than whatever Ricky is or isn't using. I looked to see if he's vegan. What I did find was a number of comments of interest. apparently he eats cheese and free range meat and wants to be a vegetarian. Hmmm, ok.
He is or has been very outspoken on the topic of us humans using animal based products. He's very much against it.
I found a curious tirade against Ricky from a vegan group called the Feminist Vegan Network. Who regarded him as a bit of a sexist pig, bit of a woman abuser and not a proper vegan. My reading of it was, those are all lowest of the low insults to that network. No real help, except even they thought he was a hypocrite.
So, in regards the lass who shot the giraffe & then posed with it. Again google looked. I don't know how we verify all this but she's a mother of 8 and a grandmother. She has a hunting programme on the TV, cable, internet or some platform so she at least derives some sort of income out of it. Maybe that's why she posts the photos on social media, seems reasonable enough.
Here's some other things...
1) She's quite the bloody good shot
2) She paid some big dollars to take that animal. (think local economy)
3) Locals used the entire animal
4) No real biggie but kind of like PETA, Animals Australia footage etc its kinda old news. It was taken 5 years ago.
5) Along with paying for her time at the hunting lodge, she has paid for trackers, hotel, food & beverage, vehicles you name it.
6) The Giraffe I'm told was an ousted bull. Further told being an older bull, it will go into decline as its time with the herd is over and if it were to try to return, their retirement plan is pretty much zero. Retired bulls ousted by a new dominant bull can be healthy for a year or so before declining & dying but it kinda depends on the injuries they've sustained from the fight with the new dominant bull. In any case, the ousted bull is history and his clock to the end is ticking very fast.
7) Under the various land management plans in that country, taking of the giraffe is highly regulated to ensure a sustainable giraffe population to avoid over hunting. The cost of a giraffe hunt is at one lodge (which we think is the one Rebecca Francis used) is $3000. Its one of the dearest animals to kill & its stays such a high price because its so tightly regulated and numbers per year for harvesting are kept low.
8) Harvesting, we use this word for good reason. Its a highly regulated & controlled harvest, not a species wipe out. Locals get the carcase, the meat. The shooter can and often does get the rights to taxidermy the pelt and export it home. Lot of paper work involved but many do it.
So what exactly did she do wrong? On what level and under which particular moral law did she commit wrong doing?
Ricky is never clear on this. Not clear on harvesting or the highly regulated nature of the harvest.
What he is clear on is he's completely & totally against hunting.
Apparently he recently said "Sport is fair. If hunting was a sport the animal would have a gun too. If it doesn't you can't call yourself a sportsman. Just a c***."
Wish he'd make his mind up, one minute hunting is a grim sport, then it isn't a sport. Bit of a problem when you think and post on the run I guess.
On the topic of trophy hunting Gervais has said "men and women that do it [trophy hunt] are equally vile and worthless".Ahhh don't catch a fish on a line, then take a photo...whether you eat it or catch & release.
Gervais went onto tweet "It's critical now. Poaching and Trophy Hunting are causing extinction. Don't believe anything different. They kill for fun & money." - Poaching is bad and should be opposed by all. So he's half right there. Trophy hunting and poaching are two distinctly different things.
Gervais also stated that the hunters were "rich psychopaths who get their cheap f*****g thrills" - I think he added the word rich to connect with not rich people, 'I'm one of you' when on his last hunting trip, house hunting, Ricky was looking at buying a £11million mansion.
Hmmm noble of him to not go into an exclusive mansion that may even have a bigger carbon burden than hunting with a bow. Funny. Ricky's hypocrisy, not his stage & TV work.
But here's the monumental beauty from Ricky...
"And would we allow some billionaire sicko to shoot one cancer patient if he gave a million dollars to cancer research? No. Of course we f*****g wouldn’t. If they really wanted to do a good deed they would donate the money, and not shoot the animal. They would be heroes then. As opposed to murdering scum."
We don't actually cull or harvest sick humans with cancer. That's because we can distinguish the difference between a human and a non human. Speciesist? Well yes...that thankfully is also what stops most of us from wanting to eat other people. Comparison is invalid, flawed, misleading and false.
Ricky could, of course spend $10,000 and have 3 ousted giraffe bulls put down by a vet, money still goes into the system and no shooting happens. Why doesn't he do this? Simple he doesn't want to do good deeds, he wants to rule others actions. Ricky has not saved ONE giraffe, but he has gone house hunting for a £11million mansion. Good deed? Nope he's a narcissistic atheist...all about him
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIquHbS3wHg
Here's some things, I might be wrong, but I think he's promoting Brand Gervais as much as anything. Lets face it for an ageing comic hack, you gotta stay current, raise a twitter storm. Job done. Job done easier when your short messages are acid laced and provide no real depth of knowledge, experience or understanding...let alone research.
I googled online, not the best research tool, but it seems better than whatever Ricky is or isn't using. I looked to see if he's vegan. What I did find was a number of comments of interest. apparently he eats cheese and free range meat and wants to be a vegetarian. Hmmm, ok.
He is or has been very outspoken on the topic of us humans using animal based products. He's very much against it.
I found a curious tirade against Ricky from a vegan group called the Feminist Vegan Network. Who regarded him as a bit of a sexist pig, bit of a woman abuser and not a proper vegan. My reading of it was, those are all lowest of the low insults to that network. No real help, except even they thought he was a hypocrite.
So, in regards the lass who shot the giraffe & then posed with it. Again google looked. I don't know how we verify all this but she's a mother of 8 and a grandmother. She has a hunting programme on the TV, cable, internet or some platform so she at least derives some sort of income out of it. Maybe that's why she posts the photos on social media, seems reasonable enough.
Here's some other things...
1) She's quite the bloody good shot
2) She paid some big dollars to take that animal. (think local economy)
3) Locals used the entire animal
4) No real biggie but kind of like PETA, Animals Australia footage etc its kinda old news. It was taken 5 years ago.
5) Along with paying for her time at the hunting lodge, she has paid for trackers, hotel, food & beverage, vehicles you name it.
6) The Giraffe I'm told was an ousted bull. Further told being an older bull, it will go into decline as its time with the herd is over and if it were to try to return, their retirement plan is pretty much zero. Retired bulls ousted by a new dominant bull can be healthy for a year or so before declining & dying but it kinda depends on the injuries they've sustained from the fight with the new dominant bull. In any case, the ousted bull is history and his clock to the end is ticking very fast.
7) Under the various land management plans in that country, taking of the giraffe is highly regulated to ensure a sustainable giraffe population to avoid over hunting. The cost of a giraffe hunt is at one lodge (which we think is the one Rebecca Francis used) is $3000. Its one of the dearest animals to kill & its stays such a high price because its so tightly regulated and numbers per year for harvesting are kept low.
8) Harvesting, we use this word for good reason. Its a highly regulated & controlled harvest, not a species wipe out. Locals get the carcase, the meat. The shooter can and often does get the rights to taxidermy the pelt and export it home. Lot of paper work involved but many do it.
So what exactly did she do wrong? On what level and under which particular moral law did she commit wrong doing?
Ricky is never clear on this. Not clear on harvesting or the highly regulated nature of the harvest.
What he is clear on is he's completely & totally against hunting.
Apparently he recently said "Sport is fair. If hunting was a sport the animal would have a gun too. If it doesn't you can't call yourself a sportsman. Just a c***."
Wish he'd make his mind up, one minute hunting is a grim sport, then it isn't a sport. Bit of a problem when you think and post on the run I guess.
On the topic of trophy hunting Gervais has said "men and women that do it [trophy hunt] are equally vile and worthless".Ahhh don't catch a fish on a line, then take a photo...whether you eat it or catch & release.
Gervais went onto tweet "It's critical now. Poaching and Trophy Hunting are causing extinction. Don't believe anything different. They kill for fun & money." - Poaching is bad and should be opposed by all. So he's half right there. Trophy hunting and poaching are two distinctly different things.
Gervais also stated that the hunters were "rich psychopaths who get their cheap f*****g thrills" - I think he added the word rich to connect with not rich people, 'I'm one of you' when on his last hunting trip, house hunting, Ricky was looking at buying a £11million mansion.
Hmmm noble of him to not go into an exclusive mansion that may even have a bigger carbon burden than hunting with a bow. Funny. Ricky's hypocrisy, not his stage & TV work.
But here's the monumental beauty from Ricky...
"And would we allow some billionaire sicko to shoot one cancer patient if he gave a million dollars to cancer research? No. Of course we f*****g wouldn’t. If they really wanted to do a good deed they would donate the money, and not shoot the animal. They would be heroes then. As opposed to murdering scum."
We don't actually cull or harvest sick humans with cancer. That's because we can distinguish the difference between a human and a non human. Speciesist? Well yes...that thankfully is also what stops most of us from wanting to eat other people. Comparison is invalid, flawed, misleading and false.
Ricky could, of course spend $10,000 and have 3 ousted giraffe bulls put down by a vet, money still goes into the system and no shooting happens. Why doesn't he do this? Simple he doesn't want to do good deeds, he wants to rule others actions. Ricky has not saved ONE giraffe, but he has gone house hunting for a £11million mansion. Good deed? Nope he's a narcissistic atheist...all about him
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIquHbS3wHg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)