|
| Thread: Feral Cats of Australia |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV |
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
posted July 19, 2015 07:26 PM |
|
|
blizzardboy said:
I'm guessing relatively few people here have personal experience with hunting. Let me decipher how I already know you would react: if you spent X hours and X mornings hunting, spotting for a deer... and spotting for a deer... and spotting for a deer... and eventually you find one and shoot one, I can pretty much 99% guarantee you would want to pull out your cell phone and take a selfie. Or at least you would if it was an impressive catch.
I'd still be posting with a carcass in hand (one I'm probably going to throw away right after the photo). The effort taken in it doesn't change a damn thing. It's killing for pleasure.
And killing for pleasure is ****ing sick to me. Deer, cat, human - whatever. We have video games to tame our primal instincts nowadays - no need to be Mr. Savage again.
As for the cats, if it must be done, then it must be done, but there are civil ways to do it, I think. Other than unleashing a band of bloodthirsty people with rifles. For example, in some parts of Europe, they try to combat the pidgeon numbers with contraceptive things added to seed, which is expected to reduce the population by 80% after a while.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
kipshasz
Undefeatable Hero
Elvin's Darkside
|
|
posted July 19, 2015 08:21 PM |
|
|
this instance is just culling of an invasive species, that some long dead retards unleashed on a fragile eco-system.
which is good. aussie wildlife had enough blows with toads, rabbits boars and god knows what else.
we have the same problem with racoon dogs, canadian minks and few species of crayfish.
now cops and goverment officials and similiar turds of society with shotguns shooting foxes just for sh1ts and giggles and threatening to shoot their beaters is another thing.
if you shoot a deer or a boar or whatever, you better damn use it up. donate the meat to an orphanage if you don't want to eat it.
but then again, at least in here, people who hunt/fish for food are the biggest poachers.
____________
"Kip is the Gavin McInnes of HC" - Salamandre
"Ashan to the Trashcan", "I got PTSD from H7. " - LizardWarrior
|
|
Gryphs
Supreme Hero
The Clever Title
|
|
posted July 19, 2015 08:27 PM |
|
Edited by Gryphs at 20:28, 19 Jul 2015.
|
Doomforge said:
For example, in some parts of Europe, they try to combat the pidgeon numbers with contraceptive things added to seed, which is expected to reduce the population by 80% after a while.
They might not have awhile, the entire ecosystem would be being damaged in the meantime.
____________
"Don't resist the force. Redirect it. Water over rock."-blizzardboy
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted July 19, 2015 11:51 PM |
|
|
Doomforge said:
I'd still be posting with a carcass in hand (one I'm probably going to throw away right after the photo). The effort taken in it doesn't change a damn thing. It's killing for pleasure.
And killing for pleasure is ****ing sick to me. Deer, cat, human - whatever.
Chasing down lions on a jeep and leaving their carcasses to rot is killing for fun. Wiping out invasive species is a very common practice and is beneficial towards the ecology.
Yes, you might happen to be having a good time while you're doing it - the thrill of the hunt - but why wouldn't you? The question is: if something is desirable, shouldn't fun/optimism naturally accompany it? I was with a firecrew and used a drip torch to light the forest on fire and burned out a mountainside that was overcrowded with understory. Should I have been bored/miserable while doing this?
Quote:
We have video games to tame our primal instincts nowadays - no need to be Mr. Savage again.
Internalizing aggressive behavior does not tame primal instincts. That is a myth.
Quote:
As for the cats, if it must be done, then it must be done, but there are civil ways to do it, I think. Other than unleashing a band of bloodthirsty people with rifles. For example, in some parts of Europe, they try to combat the pidgeon numbers with contraceptive things added to seed, which is expected to reduce the population by 80% after a while.
I don't think you can compare the two scenarios. Pigeons live in urban areas surrounded by buildings and people. You can't exactly go after them with shotguns. That is why you use birdseed or peregrine falcons to do the work for you. Falcons are actually much more responsible than birdseed because the contraceptive birdseed might be a little bit too effective. You don't want pigeons completely removed from the environment, you just don't want them pooping all over the city. They come into cities either because of the food debris or because it's with their natural migration routes. Pigeon droppings are acidic and cause damage to buildings & infrastructure. Having falcons systematically nested around the city helps take care of this problem. It's how Dubai and many other cities manage it and the results are good.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 20, 2015 12:31 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 00:38, 20 Jul 2015.
|
blizzardboy said:
Chasing down lions on a jeep and leaving their carcasses to rot is killing for fun. Wiping out invasive species is a very common practice and is beneficial towards the ecology.
Yes, you might happen to be having a good time while you're doing it - the thrill of the hunt - but why wouldn't you? The question is: if something is desirable, shouldn't fun/optimism naturally accompany it? I was with a firecrew and used a drip torch to light the forest on fire and burned out a mountainside that was overcrowded with understory. Should I have been bored/miserable while doing this?
What you're likely to enjoy is the thing here, burning wood or fishing (fish appear quite robotic to us) or "hunting" coachroaches or mosquitos can feel kind of good, yes. I could enjoy harpooning small fish under the sea, if I had to eat that way.(Not dolphins or whales.) But if it was shooting even birds or little mammals such as rabbits, put aside bigger things like deers or bears, where you see the body language and facial expression much more clearly, that would be a different story. Because you see them actually suffering and desperately trying to cling to life with great emotional effort. You can sense their moan means enormous pain even if it's very brief. And to enjoy that while you're at it, seems weird to me. I mean, people will get used to anything after a time, sure, ER doctors and nurses dont even feel too sad when humans die. But imagine a doctor who pulls the plug on terminal patients and who keeps on grinning while doing that or talking about it like a sweet experience. Would your first impression be something like "well, a man gotta enjoy his life" or would you rather think that he lacks some kind of sympathy.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted July 21, 2015 06:36 AM |
|
|
I don't think the average hunter is enjoying the act of the animal dying. Their enjoying the act of hunting.
I would differentiate between a doctor being in a bubbly mood while a patient is dying and a hunter maintaining a good mood after killing an animal because the desired outcome of treating a patient is saving their life, whereas the desired outcome of hunting an animal is killing them. So if you're pursuing a deer and you miss, you feel disappointment, and if you're pursuing a deer and you kill it, you feel satisfaction. If a doctor is treating a patient suffering cardiac arrest and the patient lives, he feels elation. If he treats the patient and the patient dies, he feels sorrow. The desired outcome was not the death of the patient.
I also think, even for higher level mammals whose body language more clearly translates to our own, that we generally look at animals in the context of how nature is suppose to work. So, for hunting a deer, whether the deer is slain by a human being or a wolf or by old age/disease and then eaten by birds, the natural cycle is taking place here. The animal is harvested and eaten and overpopulation is prevented.
However, we don't treat ourselves the same way. The government uses taxpayer money to maintain hospitals. The government does not use taxpayer money to have veterinarians and drones patrol the wilderness and treat animals if they have a heart attack. The only case where an animal would be treated is if it was owned by a human being, either as a domestic farm animal or a pet. The overwhelming majority of animal life is wild and roams free on the land and in the oceans and is allowed to live out and die according to natural processes, even though for example, a wolf is no less alive or conscious than a pet dog is.
|
|
Macron1
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 21, 2015 04:22 PM |
|
Edited by Macron1 at 16:24, 21 Jul 2015.
|
Cats have intellect similar to humans in some aspects. I only think that these wild cats would see that they are hunted and killed, and will attack humans in return. Even ordinary home cat when in anger will make deep wounds in human, imagine angered wild cats of Australia.
|
| |
|
|
