Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Stan Kroenke launches blood sports TV subscription channel, 'My Outdoor TV'

135

Comments

  • Greenie said:

    Killing animals humanly for food is essential.
    Shooting animals in the name of sport just to satisfy the ego of man is abhorrent, anyone who does so deserves to be visited by every plague in the universe. I dont buy into the excuse of conservation, its a feeble excuse to try and justify the murder of beautiful animals. Wild animals can exit without the interference of man.
    Or...if anyone does want to show how brave they really are, how about taking on an Elephant or Lion with their bare hands, let me know how you get on, scum.

    Why don't you buy into it then Greenie?

    If it weren't for the reserves there'd be a lot more of these beautiful animals extinct than there are currently, and those reserves need to cull certain animals to maintain healthy populations anyway, so by charging fat Americans to come over and do it earns the park an income to carry on it's work. That is called conservation

    Again, I don't understand the people who do it mentality
  • Such a shame that these people citing conservation reasons for hunting endangered animals, such as lions, are not willing to invest that money to conservation programmes for the kudos of helping these animals to survive rather than investing in chances to boost their own egos by saying they killed one (with no mention of the overwhelming advantage they have with modern technology and weapons). Yes the money generated may help some conservation efforts but surely money + leaving these animals alive helps it even more, why not invest in that.

    That someone like Kroenke who is worth a reported $7.5billion cannot invest in humane conservation programmes as opposed to this money making scheme and that that money will be invested into our football league.

    It infuriates me that in a time when people have endless opportunities to educate themselves they choose to be so ignorant.
  • I read somewhere that fishing lakes and areas are 'stocked'.
    If that is the principle behind the blood sports industry is is a bit of a distance from population control.
    We are apparently overrun with rate and mice, maybe the TV wouldbe more entertaining if these Hunters were filmed sitting with their weapons and gear by the skirting board...but then they would be doing cats out of a job.
  • remember that we're all descended from hunter/gatherers .. hunting and killing animals for survival is hard wired deep inside out brains .. ALL of us .. some it's hidden deep, others it's nearer the surface of our 'mindsets'
  • Greenie said:

    Greenie said:

    Killing animals humanly for food is essential.
    Shooting animals in the name of sport just to satisfy the ego of man is abhorrent, anyone who does so deserves to be visited by every plague in the universe. I dont buy into the excuse of conservation, its a feeble excuse to try and justify the murder of beautiful animals. Wild animals can exit without the interference of man.
    Or...if anyone does want to show how brave they really are, how about taking on an Elephant or Lion with their bare hands, let me know how you get on, scum.

    Why don't you buy into it then Greenie?

    If it weren't for the reserves there'd be a lot more of these beautiful animals extinct than there are currently, and those reserves need to cull certain animals to maintain healthy populations anyway, so by charging fat Americans to come over and do it earns the park an income to carry on it's work. That is called conservation

    Again, I don't understand the people who do it mentality
    Re conservation Rob, if man didn't shoot them and erode their natural areas, then we wouldn't need to conserve them, also most Animals etc that are being shot at these 'shooting reserves' are bred to be killed, so there is no conservation, also only 3% of the money go's back into the conservation.
    Its the lie perpetuated my rich, small dicked psychos who want to justify killing animals so they can inflate their lowly self worth...its all here

    https://www.thedodo.com/does-hunting-help-conservation-1389284014.html

    Like you say, I really dont understand their mentality.
    Indeed, it's been years and years of killing and the destruction of habitats that has brought us to where we are now, along with the menace of poaching, but again, if it wasn't for these reserves all of the above would still be happening (some have heavily armed guards to combat poachers). Regardless of what the link says, animals in these large enclosed areas need managing, that is an indisputable fact and if they can make 3% or 1 - 2000 quid by letting someone else pull the trigger, they're gonna do it.

    When someone is taken out to shoot an animal, it isn't the first one they come across, it will be one of a couple that have earmarked as probably injured and / or rejected by the rest of the group that is shot (whether that makes it anymore acceptable or not is subjective)
  • The animals they shoot need to be controlled anyway (whether they are injured or due to over population) and the dough these people pay to shoot these animals will go back into the park. You'd need to ask the people why they pay do it, it's not my bag, but at the end of the day it's called conservation

    That's simply not true. Their numbers are culled for the benefit of Humans... In reality their ecosystem has been invaded by those humans... They kill legally and illegally usually knowingly.

    We're a very destructive and unsustainable race. In time we will wipe out billions of our own kind, I fully expect this to begin well within my lifetime.

    Long after we're all gone, I wouldn't be surprised if nature has taken back much of civilisation (It's difficult to be surprised when you're dead though) and humans will be forced to have to live off the land again.

  • A 2015 report -

    Many folks, at least among the conservation-minded, seem to agree that trophy hunting isn’t exactly a good model of animal welfare. But many also acknowledge that it can be, if executed properly and with oversight and strict quotas, a useful wildlife management tool. Hunting may be among the few useful mechanisms for controlling ungulate populations that would expand with abandon given the relative absence of natural predators. And in other places, the fees derived from legalized trophy hunting can fund important conservation efforts on the ground. As WWF researcher Robin Naidoo points out in a new paper in the journal Conservation Biology, the Western opposition to trophy hunting is a bit ironic given how much funding legal hunting generates for wildlife management and conservation in North America.
    Naidoo and his colleagues from the WWF decided to see just what the economic impacts on Namibia have been from hunting, and using that information, they were able to infer what the possible consequences for the nation might be if trophy hunting were to be banned – something many Westerners would like to see. As a comparison, they did the same for ecotourism.
    Opponents of trophy hunting don’t disagree that trophy hunting generates important revenue, but they will point out that ecotourism is an alternative model for generating that same revenue from wildlife. Animals, they will tell you, are worth more alive than dead.
    Proponents of legal, monitored trophy hunting might respond (even if uncomfortably) that for some species, a single hunting license can bring in more dollars than several dozen tourists can. And with scientific oversight, licenses could be given for specific individuals who were already aging or who had already contributed their genes to the population’s future. If an animal must be killed, at least we can pick ones who are genetically superfluous. They will also remind you that hunters tend to be more willing to travel to places otherwise unable to benefit from tourism—places that aren’t as pretty or that are farther from major airports. And since trophy hunters are just after the trophies, they leave plenty of meat for locals to consume, which means that there could be more than a simple economic incentive to allow for some limited hunting.
    “Understanding who benefits, and how, from wildlife as a land use is a critical prerequisite to designing effective policies and programs that support conservation as a sustainable alternative to other, less biodiversity-friendly, land uses,” writes Naidoo. “It is clear that for wildlife to survive outside (and perhaps even inside) of protected areas in Africa, people must have strong incentives to tolerate, or ideally embrace, wildlife as a land use.”
    Until the mid-1990s, wildlife in Namibia was thought of as a natural resource, and animals were owned by the government. But then the government instituted a Community-Based Natural Resource Management(CBNRM) program, which allows communities to register lands as “communal conservancies.” Registration allows locals to manage and benefit from the wildlife that lived on those conservancies. The CBNRM program is widely seen as the turning point for Namibia’s wildlife. Prior to its implementation, wildlife was in severe decline there, and now it’s one of the few places in Africa where wildlife appears to be doing alright, all things considered. The CBNRM finally allowed local communities to benefit directly, both socially and economically, from the wildlife with whom they coexisted.
    For both hunting and ecotourism, conservancies usually contract with private operators. Those contracts specify of percentage of revenue that gets turned over to the conservancy. That amounts to some 8-12% of lodge revenue and 30-75% of a trophy price, depending on the species. Those funds are used by conservancies to pay for their own operational and management costs, to pay wildlife rangers and game guards, and to fund vehicle maintenance and fuel; remaining funds are distributed to various projects within local communities.
    In addition, agreements typically mandate that jobs be offered to community members. For a typical ecotourism lodge, that means 20-50 jobs, while it means 8-10 jobs for typical hunting operations. Locals are also allowed to hunt wildlife for subsistence, and can take advantage of meat left behind by trophy hunters.
    Naidoo’s team used data from 77 such CBNRM-registered conservancies. The earliest ones in their dataset were registered in 1998, and the latest ones had operated for just a year by the end of the 2013 calendar year.
    The results suggest that most conservancies need both hunting and ecotourism to benefit from their wildlife. Between 2003 and 2010, ecotourism benefits were larger than those from hunting, while hunting overshadowed ecotourism from 2010 onward. Hunting allowed payments and non-financial benefits (i.e. meat) to accumulate faster than ecotourism did, though ecotourism-related salaries have grown ten times faster than have those from hunting-related jobs. (The drop in benefits from tourism after 2010 may be related to the global economic downturn, which forced many Westerners to travel less, or to other, cheaper destinations.)
    Of 52 conservancies that had any sort of financial benefit from wildlife (that is, their income was higher than their expenses), more than half derived all or almost all those benefits from hunting. Just six were wholly or mostly reliant on ecotourism, while 18 conservancies benefited equally from both activities. Still, from a statistical perspective, neither form of tourism won out as being more beneficial than the other, with one small exception: after beginning their tourism operations, conservancies drew benefits from hunting more rapidly (within 3 years) than from ecotourism (which took 6 years, on average).
    Also different were the kinds of benefits that each activity offered to the conservancies. To put it plainly, hunting offered money and meat while ecotourism offered employment. Between 2011 and 2013, hunting operations paid $5.41 million to community conservancies, while ecotourism operations paid $2.13 million. (Buffalo and elephant, by the way, were the most lucrative trophies, with elephants representing 55% of all hunting-related income.)
    It was when Naidoo simulated a ban on trophy hunting that things became really interesting. In 2013, 74% of conservancies had income that was greater than their operating expenses. In other words, they were in the black. But if they were deprived of hunting-related income, only 16% of conservancies would have been able to pay all their bills. That’s some 50,000 square kilometers of land that would go without important protections.
    By contrast, if the opposite were to occur – if communities were deprived of ecotourism-related revenue – they would still feel it, but the impact would be smaller. In that scenario, 59% of conservancies would remain in the black.
    The researchers say, “this is the first study to use detailed quantitative data across multiple jurisdictions and over a lengthy timespan to directly compare the financial performance of these two activities.” They found that both activities made important contributions to local communities, and moreover, that those contributions were separate: ecotourism offered employment and wages, while hunting supported governance, management, and operational costs. “A focus on either one or the other would lead to substantial reductions in overall benefit generation and incentives for wildlife conservation throughout Namibia,” they say.
    The bottom line is clear. Current economic and social circumstances seem to necessitate at least some trophy hunting if local communities are to tolerate the presence of wildlife. If Westerners wish to ban trophy hunting, then it seems they need to put their money where their mouth is, and pay a lot more for their photo safaris than they do now.
  • Dazzler21 said:

    The animals they shoot need to be controlled anyway (whether they are injured or due to over population) and the dough these people pay to shoot these animals will go back into the park. You'd need to ask the people why they pay do it, it's not my bag, but at the end of the day it's called conservation

    That's simply not true. Their numbers are culled for the benefit of Humans... In reality their ecosystem has been invaded by those humans... They kill legally and illegally usually knowingly.

    We're a very destructive and unsustainable race. In time we will wipe out billions of our own kind, I fully expect this to begin well within my lifetime.

    Long after we're all gone, I wouldn't be surprised if nature has taken back much of civilisation (It's difficult to be surprised when you're dead though) and humans will be forced to have to live off the land again.

    It is true Daz
  • edited August 2017

    Dazzler21 said:

    The animals they shoot need to be controlled anyway (whether they are injured or due to over population) and the dough these people pay to shoot these animals will go back into the park. You'd need to ask the people why they pay do it, it's not my bag, but at the end of the day it's called conservation

    That's simply not true. Their numbers are culled for the benefit of Humans... In reality their ecosystem has been invaded by those humans... They kill legally and illegally usually knowingly.

    We're a very destructive and unsustainable race. In time we will wipe out billions of our own kind, I fully expect this to begin well within my lifetime.

    Long after we're all gone, I wouldn't be surprised if nature has taken back much of civilisation (It's difficult to be surprised when you're dead though) and humans will be forced to have to live off the land again.

    It is true Daz
    I agree this bolded bit.
  • Sponsored links:


  • I know the RSPB own a couple of estates in the UK and their rangers have been caught on camera making a hash out of a deer they "managed"
  • What's the point of being number 2 in the food chain if we can't take advantage of it ?
  • buckshee said:

    If you don't like it , don't watch it.

    Simple.

    Great attitude, just the sort of people we need in this society!
  • Stig said:

    Stig said:

    There's no such thing as 'blood sport'. It's just sadism. Inadequate people trying to prove how tough they are by taking it out on defenceless creatures.

    Or hunting
    IMO hunting for food is absolutely fine. We've all got to eat. Hunting for the pleasure of killing is pathetic.
    Just as some human psychopaths kill people for pleasure there are no doubt hunters who kill animals for pleasure, but most get pleasure from the stalking and the hunting. You might argue about us being "civilised" and should not have any hunting instincts, but our warring instinct have not diminished with becoming "civilised" have they. We accept it is a human trait that we are inclined to bomb, poison, shoot and gas people in their thousands, but believe that killing an animal for food, or even milking it, even if it suffers no pain or distress, is cruel and must therefore be perpetrated by psychopaths, sadists, inadequate people for the pleasure of killing .

    I suggest it is normal for us not to enjoy killing animals and requires a de-sensitisation which our forebears would have acquired naturally by necessity, and which hunters acquire by choice. I catch trout for the table and have never enjoyed dispatching a fish, it requires a natural aversion to be overcome. Farmers send their animals to slaughter but they do not raise livestock for the pleasure of killing them. Why do hunters not just put foxes in a fenced field and let the dogs on them so they can see them being torn to shreds, makes more sense than having to chase the critters all over the countryside on a bloody horse and catch one if they're lucky and then not even see the kill.

    If people with more money than they know what to do with, want to pay to exercise their skills in hunting and shooting and shoot game that is going to be killed anyway for conservation, we have no more right to accuse them of enjoying killing than accusing me of fishing for trout because I enjoy killing them. Once you accept it is a lie to accuse hunters of enjoying killing the central justification for anti hunting crumbles, which is presumably why it is compulsory to add "blood thirsty" before any description of hunting, plus "defenceless" and "innocent" before animals. I assume a guilty animal carrying a stick is fair game.

    The hunter takes away the head for a trophy and the meat is used to feed the local population. The collection of trophies is no different from collecting football programmes except there is more skill involved in hunting stalking and shooting a wild animal than buying stuff on eBay.

    If legal game shooting and trophy hunting is disrupted by the anti hunt fanatics what would be achieved?

    Did an animal live as result - no
    Will animal conservation benefit - no
    Did money go to support a poor community - no
    Did it supply food for a poor community - no
    Will all hunting stop - no
    Will illegal hunting flourish - probably

    Will anti hunting activists get their rocks off in the process - Yes, its why they do it, it's a hobby for the pleasure of bagging the trophy of a disrupted hunt. The negative outcome for wildlife and conservation is not important. There's not much difference in the pleasure hunters get, and hunters of hunters get, when all's said and done. The difference is that hunt saboteurs think their prey deserves to be dead.
  • Stig said:

    Stig said:

    There's no such thing as 'blood sport'. It's just sadism. Inadequate people trying to prove how tough they are by taking it out on defenceless creatures.

    Or hunting
    IMO hunting for food is absolutely fine. We've all got to eat. Hunting for the pleasure of killing is pathetic.
    I wouldn't share the time of day with someone who killed just for the sake of it, or just for a photo, but that rarely happens to be honest.

    To kill for the sake of it, in the UK at least, is illegal.
    It's not illegal though is it, there's plenty of bird shooting that's done just for the sake of it?
    There isn't, all wild birds are protected as stated in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. There is a General Licence on some pest species (feral / wood pigeon, corvide etc) that can be shot, but only after all other means have been tried.

    Just shooting a bird for the sake of it and leaving it there dead is illegal and highly frowned upon by the shooting community. People who have done it get reported
    Good to know I'm in a strong legal position if my pet budgie pisses me off.
  • Stig said:

    Stig said:

    There's no such thing as 'blood sport'. It's just sadism. Inadequate people trying to prove how tough they are by taking it out on defenceless creatures.

    Or hunting
    IMO hunting for food is absolutely fine. We've all got to eat. Hunting for the pleasure of killing is pathetic.
    Just as some human psychopaths kill people for pleasure there are no doubt hunters who kill animals for pleasure, but most get pleasure from the stalking and the hunting. You might argue about us being "civilised" and should not have any hunting instincts, but our warring instinct have not diminished with becoming "civilised" have they. We accept it is a human trait that we are inclined to bomb, poison, shoot and gas people in their thousands, but believe that killing an animal for food, or even milking it, even if it suffers no pain or distress, is cruel and must therefore be perpetrated by psychopaths, sadists, inadequate people for the pleasure of killing .

    I suggest it is normal for us not to enjoy killing animals and requires a de-sensitisation which our forebears would have acquired naturally by necessity, and which hunters acquire by choice. I catch trout for the table and have never enjoyed dispatching a fish, it requires a natural aversion to be overcome. Farmers send their animals to slaughter but they do not raise livestock for the pleasure of killing them. Why do hunters not just put foxes in a fenced field and let the dogs on them so they can see them being torn to shreds, makes more sense than having to chase the critters all over the countryside on a bloody horse and catch one if they're lucky and then not even see the kill.

    If people with more money than they know what to do with, want to pay to exercise their skills in hunting and shooting and shoot game that is going to be killed anyway for conservation, we have no more right to accuse them of enjoying killing than accusing me of fishing for trout because I enjoy killing them. Once you accept it is a lie to accuse hunters of enjoying killing the central justification for anti hunting crumbles, which is presumably why it is compulsory to add "blood thirsty" before any description of hunting, plus "defenceless" and "innocent" before animals. I assume a guilty animal carrying a stick is fair game.

    The hunter takes away the head for a trophy and the meat is used to feed the local population. The collection of trophies is no different from collecting football programmes except there is more skill involved in hunting stalking and shooting a wild animal than buying stuff on eBay.

    If legal game shooting and trophy hunting is disrupted by the anti hunt fanatics what would be achieved?

    Did an animal live as result - no
    Will animal conservation benefit - no
    Did money go to support a poor community - no
    Did it supply food for a poor community - no
    Will all hunting stop - no
    Will illegal hunting flourish - probably

    Will anti hunting activists get their rocks off in the process - Yes, its why they do it, it's a hobby for the pleasure of bagging the trophy of a disrupted hunt. The negative outcome for wildlife and conservation is not important. There's not much difference in the pleasure hunters get, and hunters of hunters get, when all's said and done. The difference is that hunt saboteurs think their prey deserves to be dead.
    I wish I could've wrote that.

    Well said Dips
  • A 2015 report -

    Many folks, at least among the conservation-minded,

    I stopped reading after the first two words: "Many folks....".

    It's a blatant attempt to trivialise people who find killing stuff for "fun" to be abhorrent.

    Folk is sufficiently plural without a "s" on the end.
  • During the war my platoon invented scorpion hockey.
    It was hockey played in barefeet with a live scorpion as a puck.

    It might have been a bit unkind to the scorpion, but he did have feet he could sting which added to the drama.

    This would make an excellent program.

    Plus it would be one in the eye for Capt. Rogers who banned the sport on the grounds that we were "Silly f@﷼฿Ωθฯ idiots."

    Soggy biscuit get a bit boring then?
  • During the war my platoon invented scorpion hockey.
    It was hockey played in barefeet with a live scorpion as a puck.

    It might have been a bit unkind to the scorpion, but he did have feet he could sting which added to the drama.

    This would make an excellent program.

    Plus it would be one in the eye for Capt. Rogers who banned the sport on the grounds that we were "Silly f@﷼฿Ωθฯ idiots."

    Soggy biscuit get a bit boring then?
    Soggy Scorpion was for the toughest only
  • cafcfan said:

    A 2015 report -

    Many folks, at least among the conservation-minded,

    I stopped reading after the first two words: "Many folks....".

    It's a blatant attempt to trivialise people who find killing stuff for "fun" to be abhorrent.

    Folk is sufficiently plural without a "s" on the end.
    It's a quote from the University of Washington' s Conservation magazine
  • Sponsored links:


  • During the war my platoon invented scorpion hockey.
    It was hockey played in barefeet with a live scorpion as a puck.

    It might have been a bit unkind to the scorpion, but he did have feet he could sting which added to the drama.

    This would make an excellent program.

    Plus it would be one in the eye for Capt. Rogers who banned the sport on the grounds that we were "Silly f@﷼฿Ωθฯ idiots."

    Soggy biscuit get a bit boring then?
    Soggy Scorpion was for the toughest only
    Brown scorpion for the toughedt of the tough
  • During the war my platoon invented scorpion hockey.
    It was hockey played in barefeet with a live scorpion as a puck.

    It might have been a bit unkind to the scorpion, but he did have feet he could sting which added to the drama.

    This would make an excellent program.

    Plus it would be one in the eye for Capt. Rogers who banned the sport on the grounds that we were "Silly f@﷼฿Ωθฯ idiots."

    Soggy biscuit get a bit boring then?
    Soggy Scorpion was for the toughest only
    Brown scorpion for the toughedt of the tough
    .......or Ashley Cole.
  • Stig said:

    Stig said:

    There's no such thing as 'blood sport'. It's just sadism. Inadequate people trying to prove how tough they are by taking it out on defenceless creatures.

    Or hunting
    IMO hunting for food is absolutely fine. We've all got to eat. Hunting for the pleasure of killing is pathetic.
    Will anti hunting activists get their rocks off in the process - Yes, its why they do it, it's a hobby for the pleasure of bagging the trophy of a disrupted hunt. The negative outcome for wildlife and conservation is not important. There's not much difference in the pleasure hunters get, and hunters of hunters get, when all's said and done. The difference is that hunt saboteurs think their prey deserves to be dead.
    Insane equivocation, followed by siding with the leftie-baiting half of that insane equivocation: congratulations sir - just as in all the Brexit threads, you've played the Daily Express Opinion Columnist to a goddamned T
  • Stig said:

    Stig said:

    There's no such thing as 'blood sport'. It's just sadism. Inadequate people trying to prove how tough they are by taking it out on defenceless creatures.

    Or hunting
    IMO hunting for food is absolutely fine. We've all got to eat. Hunting for the pleasure of killing is pathetic.
    Just as some human psychopaths kill people for pleasure there are no doubt hunters who kill animals for pleasure, but most get pleasure from the stalking and the hunting. You might argue about us being "civilised" and should not have any hunting instincts, but our warring instinct have not diminished with becoming "civilised" have they. We accept it is a human trait that we are inclined to bomb, poison, shoot and gas people in their thousands, but believe that killing an animal for food, or even milking it, even if it suffers no pain or distress, is cruel and must therefore be perpetrated by psychopaths, sadists, inadequate people for the pleasure of killing .

    I suggest it is normal for us not to enjoy killing animals and requires a de-sensitisation which our forebears would have acquired naturally by necessity, and which hunters acquire by choice. I catch trout for the table and have never enjoyed dispatching a fish, it requires a natural aversion to be overcome. Farmers send their animals to slaughter but they do not raise livestock for the pleasure of killing them. Why do hunters not just put foxes in a fenced field and let the dogs on them so they can see them being torn to shreds, makes more sense than having to chase the critters all over the countryside on a bloody horse and catch one if they're lucky and then not even see the kill.

    If people with more money than they know what to do with, want to pay to exercise their skills in hunting and shooting and shoot game that is going to be killed anyway for conservation, we have no more right to accuse them of enjoying killing than accusing me of fishing for trout because I enjoy killing them. Once you accept it is a lie to accuse hunters of enjoying killing the central justification for anti hunting crumbles, which is presumably why it is compulsory to add "blood thirsty" before any description of hunting, plus "defenceless" and "innocent" before animals. I assume a guilty animal carrying a stick is fair game.

    The hunter takes away the head for a trophy and the meat is used to feed the local population. The collection of trophies is no different from collecting football programmes except there is more skill involved in hunting stalking and shooting a wild animal than buying stuff on eBay.

    If legal game shooting and trophy hunting is disrupted by the anti hunt fanatics what would be achieved?

    Did an animal live as result - no
    Will animal conservation benefit - no
    Did money go to support a poor community - no
    Did it supply food for a poor community - no
    Will all hunting stop - no
    Will illegal hunting flourish - probably

    Will anti hunting activists get their rocks off in the process - Yes, its why they do it, it's a hobby for the pleasure of bagging the trophy of a disrupted hunt. The negative outcome for wildlife and conservation is not important. There's not much difference in the pleasure hunters get, and hunters of hunters get, when all's said and done. The difference is that hunt saboteurs think their prey deserves to be dead.
    I couldn't disagree more.
  • Stig said:

    Stig said:

    There's no such thing as 'blood sport'. It's just sadism. Inadequate people trying to prove how tough they are by taking it out on defenceless creatures.

    Or hunting
    IMO hunting for food is absolutely fine. We've all got to eat. Hunting for the pleasure of killing is pathetic.
    Just as some human psychopaths kill people for pleasure there are no doubt hunters who kill animals for pleasure, but most get pleasure from the stalking and the hunting. You might argue about us being "civilised" and should not have any hunting instincts, but our warring instinct have not diminished with becoming "civilised" have they. We accept it is a human trait that we are inclined to bomb, poison, shoot and gas people in their thousands, but believe that killing an animal for food, or even milking it, even if it suffers no pain or distress, is cruel and must therefore be perpetrated by psychopaths, sadists, inadequate people for the pleasure of killing .

    I suggest it is normal for us not to enjoy killing animals and requires a de-sensitisation which our forebears would have acquired naturally by necessity, and which hunters acquire by choice. I catch trout for the table and have never enjoyed dispatching a fish, it requires a natural aversion to be overcome. Farmers send their animals to slaughter but they do not raise livestock for the pleasure of killing them. Why do hunters not just put foxes in a fenced field and let the dogs on them so they can see them being torn to shreds, makes more sense than having to chase the critters all over the countryside on a bloody horse and catch one if they're lucky and then not even see the kill.

    If people with more money than they know what to do with, want to pay to exercise their skills in hunting and shooting and shoot game that is going to be killed anyway for conservation, we have no more right to accuse them of enjoying killing than accusing me of fishing for trout because I enjoy killing them. Once you accept it is a lie to accuse hunters of enjoying killing the central justification for anti hunting crumbles, which is presumably why it is compulsory to add "blood thirsty" before any description of hunting, plus "defenceless" and "innocent" before animals. I assume a guilty animal carrying a stick is fair game.

    The hunter takes away the head for a trophy and the meat is used to feed the local population. The collection of trophies is no different from collecting football programmes except there is more skill involved in hunting stalking and shooting a wild animal than buying stuff on eBay.

    If legal game shooting and trophy hunting is disrupted by the anti hunt fanatics what would be achieved?

    Did an animal live as result - no
    Will animal conservation benefit - no
    Did money go to support a poor community - no
    Did it supply food for a poor community - no
    Will all hunting stop - no
    Will illegal hunting flourish - probably

    Will anti hunting activists get their rocks off in the process - Yes, its why they do it, it's a hobby for the pleasure of bagging the trophy of a disrupted hunt. The negative outcome for wildlife and conservation is not important. There's not much difference in the pleasure hunters get, and hunters of hunters get, when all's said and done. The difference is that hunt saboteurs think their prey deserves to be dead.
    What a load of drivel. They love killing.

    You don't have to support every single thing that annoys people who are caring you know.

    If they are such caring conservators, why don't the trophy hunters stalk the poachers? Oh yes, because they might fight back...
    Id fight a poacher any day

    ; )
  • As long as he's televising nothing that's illegal in this country, I don't see a problem with it. It's the mucky, murky end of capitalism: as long as a buck can be made out of it, it really doesn't matter how repellent it is.

    I just hope that sufficiently few mouth-breathers subscribe to it to make it sustainable and he loses money on it.

    And I'll enjoy the channel being put out of its misery.
  • FFS! No Stoat Tickling World Championships from Chalfont St Peters... travesty of TV scheduling!
  • edited August 2017
    If what Dippenhall said had any truth to it, why are hunters not content with riding their horses chasing a scent laid by a human as they can do now and have been able to do since the fox hunting ban? I am not saying the actual kill is all of it, but it is a significant part of it. Honesty is required here!
Sign In or Register to comment.