BRFR Cake Stop 'breaking news' miscellany

[PurplePenguin]

What a bollox argument.
Animals reared for human consumption go through abattoir's where they are humanely slaughtered.
I helped ship lambs for slaughter when working on a farm. Yep, cute white woolly lambs. Some of them I hand reared.
Hunting animals does not satisfy a fraction of a percent of demand.
There is very little waste from an animal slaughtered humanely in abattoir's.
Hunting was a necessary human survival tool. Nowadays, it's mainly obsolete.
You have to prove to me that hunting carries sustainable environmental and conservation benefit before chucking the social acceptance argument around.

Well, it's like this: people don't like hunting but they don't mind buying a lump of steak or a Pork chop in the supermarket as if that somehow justifies killing an animal through vicarious pleasure simply because we are separated from killing animals. Therefore, killing animals is fine because we are not used to it and should simply get over it. It's a natural thing to do. It was a natural thing to do.

There is no need to hunt an animal. There is no guarantee you are going to kill the animal in one shot. There's no guarantee that it won't go away wounded to suffer an agonising death through blood loss, lack of ability to fend for itself or infection. There's no guarantee you aren't killing a pregnant female (bears?) or a mother. There is a balance in nature where often Alpha males rule and that's not for human reasons, it's because genetically, the strongest survive. It's particularly significant in a lion pride where the Alpha male will protect the pride and it's young. New ruling males often kill cubs and we might find this abhorrent but it ensures genetic originality.

The other questionable aspect, is why a human being wants to take the life of an animal by shooting it through the cross hairs of a rifle - it's a cowardly act. There's nothing brave or manly about it.

There are lots of rabbits in my parents' garden, but I unable to use a bow and arrow and make rabbit pie. That would be an example of additional food although not a material amount.

With regard to the way animals die, that again is another British thing. Wild animals don't go to retirement homes to see out their days in comfort. That said, most hunters put a lot of effort into ensuring a quick death. In the Stacey Dooley documentary one of things she most struggled with and could not overcome was the need to track an animal for 10 hours and sometimes fail to find it.

 

[First Aspect]

That comment wasn't directed at you personally; however, even fishing in the UK is a bit weird, because it almost always involves releasing the fish. I know there wouldn't be any fish left if that wasn't the case, but it is still very different from other countries.

Some people are against sport fishing. There's a fairly good argument that it is cruel. But you are almost in whataboutery territory with this analogy.

A better comparator would be dodo hunting. I understand that the meat is very tasty, but I have not tried it myself.

 

[First Aspect]

There are lots of rabbits in my parents' garden, but I unable to use a bow and arrow and make rabbit pie. That would be an example of additional food although not a material amount.

With regard to the way animals die, that again is another British thing. Wild animals don't go to retirement homes to see out their days in comfort. That said, most hunters put a lot of effort into ensuring a quick death. In the Stacey Dooley documentary one of things she most struggled with and could not overcome was the need to track an animal for 10 hours and sometimes fail to find it.

Some people walk for days to see a rare wild animal,.without the need to then shoot it.

I am really struggling to identify what point you are trying to make. It seems to be several somewhat unrelated points, which tells me you don't really have one, want value for the full half hour argument you paid for.

 

[PurplePenguin]

Some people walk for days to see a rare wild animal,.without the need to then shoot it.

I am really struggling to identify what point you are trying to make. It seems to be several somewhat unrelated points, which tells me you don't really have one, want value for the full half hour argument you paid for.

No. I have a point, I just haven't articulated it particularly well because I don't feel that strongly about it. I used to think the way that everyone here does on the subject, but through travel I encountered alternative points of view, so I am far less judgemental about it now.

 

[First Aspect]

No. I have a point, I just haven't articulated it particularly well because I don't feel that strongly about it. I used to think the way that everyone here does on the subject, but through travel I encountered alternative points of view, so I am far less judgemental about it now.

Feel free to articulate it.

For what it is worth, the cultural relationship people have with hunting does seem to depend on the ratio of people to wildlife. I once went to a restaurant in Reykjavik and sampled gannet and puffin, amongst other things. Since there are rather a lot of each per capita over there, I wasn't all that horrified. I would feel differently if we were sending sports shooting parties out to Bass Rock and selling the meat in Edinburgh, because I would know the dish would not be available for very long due to supply issues.

That restaurant also had polar bear meat on the menu, because once or twice a year one had to be shot on account of the likelihood of eating a farmer. I understood this, but would be somewhat more troubled if there were 4x4 tours available to shoot polar bears for fun and then eat the meat.

 

[PurplePenguin]

Feel free to articulate it.

For what it is worth, the cultural relationship people have with hunting does seem to depend on the ratio of people to wildlife. I once went to a restaurant in Reykjavik and sampled gannet and puffin, amongst other things. Since there are rather a lot of each per capita over there, I wasn't all that horrified. I would feel differently if we were sending sports shooting parties out to Bass Rock and selling the meat in Edinburgh, because I would know the dish would not be available for very long due to supply issues.

That restaurant also had polar bear meat on the menu, because once or twice a year one had to be shot on account of the likelihood of eating a farmer. I understood this, but would be somewhat more troubled if there were 4x4 tours available to shoot polar bears for fun and then eat the meat.

The hunting licences do control the supply issue though, so I don't think it is relevant to the general point. There may be corruption in some places, but I see that as on a par with general poaching. The discussion really comes down to whether hunting should be enjoyed and whether animals unduly suffer from being killed that way.

Hunting with a bow and arrow is very hard and requires considerable skill, so I can see how people consider it a challenge and get enjoyment from that challenge. It also commonly results in a slow death, so I understand the criticism, but as I said above, I accept that wild animals do not die in retirement homes.

 

[Poacher]

That restaurant also had polar bear meat on the menu, because once or twice a year one had to be shot on account of the likelihood of eating a farmer. I understood this, but would be somewhat more troubled if there were 4x4 tours available to shoot polar bears for fun and then eat the meat.

I rather doubt that regular Icelandic 4x4 polar bear hunts would be a viable business model; 2 polar bears reached Iceland in 2008, one each in 2010, 2011, 2016 and 2024. All of them shot, AFAIK. https://www.natt.is/en/fauna/mammals/hvitabjorn

 

[First Aspect]

The hunting licences do control the supply issue though, so I don't think it is relevant to the general point. There may be corruption in some places, but I see that as on a par with general poaching. The discussion really comes down to whether hunting should be enjoyed and whether animals unduly suffer from being killed that way.

Hunting with a bow and arrow is very hard and requires considerable skill, so I can see how people consider it a challenge and get enjoyment from that challenge. It also commonly results in a slow death, so I understand the criticism, but as I said above, I accept that wild animals do not die in retirement homes.

I rather suspect that the merits and number of hunting licences granted is an open debate in many cases.

That aside, commercial big game hunting is a blood sport. In our culture is that bloods sports are being seen as less acceptable than they used to be.

 

[Pinno718]

Can we please take a step back from assessing the justification for hunting based on whether or not the meat was eaten. It is not a relevant factor.

Let me ask a related question. Who is in favour of industrial whaling? After all, the oil was jolly useful, so it must be okay, right?

This ^.

Strikes me as a somewhat convenient separation from the bigger picture argument. It's dismissive

That comment wasn't directed at you personally; however, even fishing in the UK is a bit weird, because it almost always involves releasing the fish. I know there wouldn't be any fish left if that wasn't the case, but it is still very different from other countries.

I used to fish and I used to mainly catch and release, only taking home what was large enough to warrant killing.
Fish cannot survive in polluted waters. Many waters in Scotland are actually stocked. They release minnows into them. So, the side effect of fishing is that water quality is maintained. It has to be or the fish don't survive.
Water quality is affected by amongst other things, by nitrates (from agriculture), pollution from septic tank over flows and sewerage purge/leaks (as has been well documented) etc.
(Fresh water) fishing means that rivers are better monitored and looked after which has wider implication.
Whole ecosystems surround water tributaries. The by product of fishing is often, highly beneficial. Healthy water = healthy environments.

In that vein, where organised hunting for mammals takes place, it has to be proven that:

a) it benefits the species
b) it protects the species
c) it conserves habitat
d) it creates protectionism of that habitat and all that relies on it
e) it is sustainable

Over and above a conservation scheme. In other words, does it benefit the habitat and the species more than a dedicated, organised scheme or project?
Show me specific examples where it does.

 

[PurplePenguin]

This ^.

Strikes me as a somewhat convenient separation from the bigger picture argument. It's dismissive


I used to fish and I used to mainly catch and release, only taking home what was large enough to warrant killing.
Fish cannot survive in polluted waters. Many waters in Scotland are actually stocked. They release minnows into them. So, the side effect of fishing is that water quality is maintained. It has to be or the fish don't survive.
Water quality is affected by amongst other things, by nitrates (from agriculture), pollution from septic tank over flows and sewerage purge/leaks (as has been well documented) etc.
(Fresh water) fishing means that rivers are better monitored and looked after which has wider implication.
Whole ecosystems surround water tributaries. The by product of fishing is often, highly beneficial. Healthy water = healthy environments.

In that vein, where organised hunting for mammals takes place, it has to be proven that:

a) it benefits the species
b) it protects the species
c) it conserves habitat
d) it creates protectionism of that habitat and all that relies on it
e) it is sustainable

Over and above a conservation scheme. In other words, does it benefit the habitat and the species more than a dedicated, organised scheme or project?
Show me specific examples where it does.

So you are happy with the argument for fishing, but not for land based stuff? That seems a contradictory position to me. Copilot provided some examples of where the money has helped conserve the habitat.

This is the documentary I mentioned before.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p04gjlhz/stacey-dooley-living-with-big-game-hunters

 

[Pinno718]

So you are happy with the argument for fishing, but not for land based stuff? That seems a contradictory position to me.

Shooting an endangered species (Leopards, Lions etc) doesn't compare one bit. I don't know how you can make the comparison.
I'll watch the documentary later.

 

[First Aspect]

So you are happy with the argument for fishing, but not for land based stuff? That seems a contradictory position to me. Copilot provided some examples of where the money has helped conserve the habitat.

This is the documentary I mentioned before.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p04gjlhz/stacey-dooley-living-with-big-game-hunters

This is whataboutery. It amounts to inferring that someone doesn't have a point one one issue because of a perceived contradiction on another.

You know what, I'm a meat eating hypocrite. I've never intentionally killed an animal but I do like steak, and I do eat both wild and farmed fish.

Does this, in your mind, preclude me from not being in favour of big game trophy hunting? I ask because that's what you seem to be saying.

 

[First Aspect]

Shooting an endangered species (Leopards, Lions etc) doesn't compare one bit. I don't know how you can make the comparison.
I'll watch the documentary later.

As it's Stacey Dooley I suggest subtitles and putting it on mute.

 

[Psamathe]

As it's Stacey Dooley I suggest subtitles and putting it on mute.

Cancel the sub-titles, keep on mute and find a good book to read.

 

[PurplePenguin]

This is whataboutery. It amounts to inferring that someone doesn't have a point one one issue because of a perceived contradiction on another.

You know what, I'm a meat eating hypocrite. I've never intentionally killed an animal but I do like steak, and I do eat both wild and farmed fish.

Does this, in your mind, preclude me from not being in favour of big game trophy hunting? I ask because that's what you seem to be saying.

Entirely depends on the reasoning. Pinno's reasoning was, I believe, that land based hunting damages the ecosystem; however, while putting forward this argument, he was simultaneously arguing that fishing helps the ecosystem. I find it hard to believe the impact of these two actions can be so different as ultimately fishers and hunters both want live things to entertain themselves.

If your reasoning is that no one should kill without blessing the animal first, then I'm fine with your logic provided you eat Halal or Kosher meat and enjoy the fully blessed stuff.