Showing posts with label sport hunting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sport hunting. Show all posts

Thursday 6 July 2023

Parents should instill in their children confidence and humility to be sensitive to animal welfare

 This is a short note on a subject which might be obvious to many people but despite that I think that it needs to be stated clearly. I've seen many pictures of sport hunters smiling to the camera with their rifle in front of them together with the iconic, large animal that they have shot dead. They seem proud of themselves, oblivious to the pain and distress they've caused for their entertainment.

Parents should instill in their children confidence and humility to be sensitive to animal welfare
Parents should instill in their children confidence and humility to be sensitive to animal welfare. Image: MikeB

They are obscene pictures. This sport hunter is often a man but not always. Whether they are a man or a woman they are invariably confident individuals, certain in what they are doing.

When their confidence leaks into arrogance and you combine arrogance with ignorance you have a very human-centric person who is able to shoot an animal dead and in doing so cause a lot of pain and distress. Arrogance in the human leads to insensitivity towards animal welfare.

Human-centric attitudes are also described as anthropocentric attitudes. The dictionary definition of anthropocentric is: "regarding humankind as the central or most important element of existence, especially as opposed to God or animals."

Armed with that attitude people can look down on animals. When you look down on animals as secondary creatures in terms of value you engage in an extreme form of speciesism which allows you to abuse animals and believe that they are non-sentient.

In believing that they are non-sentient or being careless or reckless as to whether they are or are not, you are able to cause them pain.

But this attitude stems from confidence without humility. Confident people need to understand the meaning of humility and its advantages. They should be modest about themselves. In being modest they can temper that confidence and understand that animals have rights, sometimes equal rights or they should do.

The dictionary definition of 'humility': the quality of having a modest or low view of one's importance.

Confidence with humility is a barrier to an anthropocentric attitude towards the planet. This is so important for animal welfare. Every sport hunters need a heavy dose of humility. If they had suffered early in their lives and been brought down; made vulnerable by a circumstance or an event it would have knocked that arrogance out of them. They would then understand better the position of animals on this planet.

The world can do without anthropocentric, arrogant people who are ignorant about animal welfare without realising it.

P.S. Kids need confidence in order to made headway in the world when adults. Life is much harder for a young person if they lack confidence. 

Saturday 29 April 2023

Trophy hunters threaten to sue people who use photographs of them with their shot animals

In a rather nasty development, trophy hunters are threatening to sue a British Member of Parliament, Sir Roger Gale, because he used photographs of trophy hunters with their kills in an All-Party Parliamentary Group on Banning Trophy Hunting report dated June 2022. This looks like the trophy hunters are using their intellectual property rights to try and delay the passage of the bill to ban the importation of trophies into the UK and to send out a general signal to others.

I plead fair use in using the photo of the sport hunter and his bloody lion kill. I don't think the photographer of Lineker will mind me using the photo. There is an educational requirement here that needs to be fulfilled.

The report contains 78 photographs. The trophy hunters are demanding £1200 per photograph. They are therefore demanding a grand total of £93,600. And if they don't pay up, they are going to sue him they say.

I have used photographs of trophy hunters with their kills on my websites and criticised them heavily for obvious reasons. It concerns me that they may try and sue me as well. But if they sue me, they'll have to sue thousands of others and newspapers. It is not going to happen which is why they've targeted on special document.

I have always stated that these photographs have ended up in the public domain through general usage. And in addition, I would plead fair use because it is highly important that people are educated about trophy hunting and its cruelty. It has to stop. In the interests of the planet generally and wildlife particularly, trophy hunters must be stopped.

And this is also in the interest of humankind's attempts to interact with animals in a humane manner. I'd be disappointed if a judge found in favour of the hunters. They might as technically this might be seen as a breach of copyright.

The argument that trophy hunting improves conservation of wild species is highly erroneous. You can't kill animals to protect animals. Logic dictates that. But the trophy hunters constantly wheel out these poor arguments to defend their obnoxious habits.

As I said, this is a worrying development. The report comes from PA Media. A group of sport hunters say that the photographs which show them posing with their dead animals, often lions, have been used without their permission and they are therefore entitled to payment.

But who owns the photographs? That's the big question. I guess they were taken by the sport hunters or friends of the sport hunters. But they've found their way into the news media. I would bet my bottom dollar that the news media have not paid for these photographs.

The photographs are all over the Internet by the way. The photographers have done nothing about that. They can do nothing about it as it is too widespread. But this, to me, has resulted in the photographs being in the public domain. By implication, the photographers have accepted their presence. That's my argument. It might not be a completely solid one but nonetheless that's what I would state.

The important aspect of this is that you would plead fair use for educational purposes. Sport hunting is so immoral in my view that it justifies using someone else's photograph without their permission in order to bring about a ban on this practice.

And the British government would agree that because they are in the process instigating a ban on the importation of trophies by sport hunters into the UK.

Wednesday 13 April 2022

Arguments against animal rights - a discussion

Arguments against animal rights are likely to come from people who feel that their interests are negatively affected as a result of granting animals rights. These sorts of people are likely to be business men making a profit out of animals (or businesses ancillary to that kind of business), or people involved in the wholly unacceptable business of sport or trophy hunting, or indeed politicians connected with these businesses. In short opponents will be people who feel that their human "rights" will be eroded by an extension of animal rights.

A hunter who would be against animal rights
A hunter who would be against animal rights. She is Renee Sullivan with the 3 kittens she killed for the hell of it. Montage: MikeB

My thoughts on the montage above:

This is an Australian female hunter, aged 20, who likes to kill cats of any age which includes kittens with a compound bow and arrow. She believes that she is carrying out a service on behalf of the nation and her community. Her behaviour enrages cat lovers and animal rights advocates. She can't understand the criticism. There is a chasm between cat lovers and hunters who like to kill cats. That chasm is the comprehension that when you shoot an animal such as a kitten with a bow and arrow you are going to cause a lot of pain. It is an inhumane way to kill an animal no matter what justification you wish to put upon the action. Cat lovers find this deplorable and criticise them on social media very heavily. The hunter can't understand.
There is a natural competition between animals on the planet and that includes the human-animal competing with non-human animals (apologies to the people who think we are special and created by God - the creationists). 
"When humans give rights to animals, they give away some of their rights" - Michael (and if it is true, it is acceptable and a good thing).
Granting rights to humans gets in the way of unscrupulous business people who wish to abuse human rights to turn a better profit. Think about people trafficking, for example, or wages that are too low, or child labour. At a more fundamental level human rights abuses will be instigated by politicians against people who threaten their power. 

In other words, unscrupulous people will tend to abuse people or animals that get in the way of things that serve their interests.

Arguments against animal rights will therefore be founded on a shaky premise. But turning a profit is not in itself bad, it is what makes the world tick. It is just that people have got to be managed to prevent excesses. Often, it seems, we get lobbying from, for example, people of the sport hunting fraternity (these people are probably connected to the gun lobby people). 

These people want their voices to be heard in government and the former president, Bush, was one of those presidents who tended to listen. What his government did was more likely to be against both the environment and animal rights (the two go together and can stand in the way of business profits).

Animals don't have a voice. We give them a voice through animal rights. People like to use animals to their advantage. One day we will see this as unacceptable. Animal rights exist in the West but not in the Eastern countries of the world to the same extent (Japan excepted). 

This shows that this is a developing area, still. For cats it is a long time coming as they were domesticated some nine thousand years ago. They still do not have true animal rights and some people (the chief exec. of Peta, Ingrid Newkirk, being one) think that there should be no companion animals as the only way to ensure true animal rights.

There are no arguments against animal rights that truly stand up. We share the planet with our fellow animals. They enhance our lives in many ways and provide us with food. Even on a commercial basis we need to protect them in the long term. Businesses tend to think short term and ruin things in the process (think over-fishing, for example). 

The only question is about how many rights we allow, their nature and extent and whether we can find a balance. In a perfect world, animal rights should be granted at a most fundamental level. Where there is a break down in animal rights there will usually be a corresponding loss of human rights, the two are linked.

The counter argument: If you were one of those "masters of the universe" alpha male types, you might argue that humans are the top predator, that we rule the world and that animals are on the planet to do with as we please. You might argue that humans are the direct creation of God and we have the right to use animals for our benefit. That 'man' has dominion over animals as per the bible. Here is a direct quote from the bible. Christianity is to blame for a huge amount of animal abuse and it has worked against animal rights for centuries.

Genesis 1:26 - Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

Such people would say that if we gave animals to many rights, it would run counter to these biblical arguments. We would be stopped from using animals, which is our God given right. That is the only argument against animals rights and it doesn't stack up on so many levels.

Religion: I believe that all animals are equal and that includes people (the human-animal). I do, though, understand the high numbers of religious people in the USA. I think the bible is bad doctrine in respect of animal rights. Did you know that the cat is never mentioned in the bible? And unspeakable cruelty has been perpetrated in the name of religion against animals.

Arguments Against Animal Rights to Cats and the Law

Thursday 29 April 2021

The secret footage of the N.R.A chief's botched elephant hunt

I have written about this on another website so I won't repeat myself. In any case there is a video to watch and my thanks to The New Yorker. I have not watched the video. I can't watch this sort of video not because I'm squeamish, far from it, but because I don't think it is good psychologically to watch these sorts of videos. The images tend to stick in my mind and they return to me in idle moments which is upsetting.

LaPierre the NRA chief stands over the elephant he so inepty tried to shoot dead
LaPierre the NRA chief stands over the elephant he so inepty tried to shoot dead. Screenshot.

Wayne LaPierre is the name of the man that you see in the video trying to shoot this bush elephant which he fails to do despite trying several times. One of the other people there, a guide, actually dispatches the elephant because this inept, hopelessly inadequate man cannot even do that successfully.

On his watch, the NRA has descended into apparent chaos with claims against embezzlement by executives and the organisation has filed for voluntary bankruptcy as I understand it. This video was meant to promote the NRA but it was never aired because, I guess, it is a complete disaster and so embarrassing that they tried to bury it. However, The New Yorker got their hands on it and they allow people to embed the video into their websites.

Please remember, though, that embedded videos are held on other websites and therefore they are out of my control. If somebody deletes it on the server then it will stop working on this website.

The NRA vigourously lobbies the US government to maintain the proliferation of guns in America which results in the country having an abnormally high homicide rate by guns, almost the highest in the world which, as well, must be embarrassing to the government. And that habit of keeping guns and that attraction to guns spils over into trophy and sport hunting which is what you see in the video.

The NRA promote sport hunting. They do their best to keep it running and it is gradually dawning on people including Africans living in Africa who are in authority that it is not a means of conservation of wild species as they constantly proclaim to the world but it achieves the opposite, it gradually decimates these iconic species.

The decline in the elephant population in Africa is shocking and the same goes for lions and other iconic species. But the trophy hunters in America still come to Africa to shoot them for their entertainment and of course they do so with the cooperation of the governments of the nations of Africa including Botswana which is where this video was made (Botswana’s Okavango Delta).

They say that the heavy expenses of getting a licence to shoot one of these animals in Africa goes to supporting conservation but it is highly unlikely because most of that money goes in the pocket of corrupt officials. We all know that. There is no point in the NRA or corrupt officials in Africa trying to pull the wool over our eyes about this.

The sport hunters of the world normally come from America, Russia and the UK and perhaps Germany. Everyone of these people should be ashamed of themselves. LaPierre has been laughed at by animal advocates but with a sense of horror. The video elicits a sense of horror, shame and demoralisation in those people who want to genuinely save the iconic African wild animals.

Monday 22 July 2019

Woman who hunts to eat says vegans and shooters have common ground

Rachel Carrie. Photo: her FB account.
Rachel Carrie says that hunters can eat meat without guilt because they have no problems of animal welfare. She is a woman who has currently hit the headlines and is a former vegetarian and a mum. She says that she has fed her family for a year on 125 pigeons, 80 pheasants and partridges and 40 ducks and 4 deer.

"Vegetarians and vegans, shooters and hunters need to be educated. We are not the enemy. We have common ground."

Rachel comes from Yorkshire, UK. As a girl she was a vegetarian because she was upset by factory farming. She remained a vegetarian for five years from the age of seven. She changed her views when her father acquired a hawk. He took her out rabbiting. She says that she was okay about eating something where she had seen where it had lived. She said that she hopes that makes sense. It doesn't to me.

She says that she feels no guilt or qualms abour shooting deer. She believes that it is not an act of cruelty.

"You place a clean shot straight through the heart and that animal never knew you were there."

She believes that the animals don't suffer when they are shot and that they are not scared. The animal is not transported miles and miles to an abattoir.

Further, she says that when you shoot an animal dead to eat it you don't waste the food as people do when they buy food at a supermarket.

She firmly believes that she does not have the animal welfare issues surrounding the usual livestock farming and killing in abattoirs.

She likes to pose for photographs of the animals that she has killed. Judging by the photographs she does not only kill animals in the UK.

Comment: her argument is based upon the fact that she always makes a clean kill straight to the heart. Can she guarantee to do that every time? I don't think so. It's a very poor argument. Looking at her face in the photographs I get the distinct impression that she enjoys killing animals. I wonder whether she is making an excuse for the enjoyment of killing animals. Is she justifying it? Is she finding a reason why she kills animals and masking the true reason: entertainment.

I have heard this argument before namely that when hunters kill animals to eat then what they do is justified. Another justification that they wheel out is that it is good for conservation. I simply don't get it. There has to be some cruelty involved because you cannot guarantee killing an animal instantly without any pain with a rifle.

I get the argument about animal welfare issues with respect to farming and abattoir. There are definitely big animal welfare issues in farming which drives people to be vegans or vegetarians. But the answer is not in hunting and pretending this is good for conservation or animal welfare.

This woman likes to kill, she likes to take photographs of herself and present them online on social media. She is all over social media. If she was genuinely concerned about feeding herself why should she publicise the whole thing so energetically? Why should she embrace social media? Why can't she just get on with it quietly? To me she enjoys the celebrity. The news media has picked up on this. She is a good-looking woman. You put her face with a dead animal and it turns some people on. It turns on the hunters and shooters who are normally macho type men in America.

It's all a lot of nonsense in my opinion. I am tired of hearing these false justifications for shooting animals. There is no need for it today and a lot more needs to be done to improve animal welfare in respect of livestock. One area would be halal meat. In the UK the authorities are far too soft with respect to how halal meat. They allow it out of political correctness. I disagree with this attitude.

Friday 4 April 2014

Lack of Proper Oversight Of Cougar Hunting In America

Big cat rescue make a point that had occurred to me for long time which is that the state governmental agencies who regulate the hunting of the cougar are funded through the license fees that permit people to hunt. This must be an incorrect and ill-thought out process.

If the regulatory agencies are funded by license fees then they will naturally wish to hand out as many licenses as they possibly can which will lead to a tendency to issue too many licenses for the sake of increased income. If too many licences are issued then too many cougars are shot and in addition the regulatory agency is no longer doing its job in protecting wildlife and ensuring that there is a balance between people and cat.

Because too many cougars are shot, the agency then have to sell the idea to the public that there are plenty of cougars about. Do they concoct sightings and are the sightings of escaped pet cougars?

The fees earned through licences should go to the state treasury and the regulatory agencies should receive a fixed budget from the state government. There should be no motivation or bias created through income. Their role is not to be a business but to be a totally unbiased regulator whose underlying goal is to protect wildlife and maintain a balance between wildlife and people. Even that goal is impossible because the population of people is consistently growing and therefore the balance between people and wildlife is consistently changing in the direction of less wildlife and more people. So where is the balance between the two?

I can remember the shell oil spill. Do you remember that? It was a massive ecological disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. The way I see it is that the regulatory authorities dishing out licenses to oil companies were getting backhanders to allow unsafe practices which in this instance led to this massive ecological disaster.

I have no evidence to support my allegation but that's the way it seems to me and it is very similar to what is going on with respect to the wildlife and fishery agencies. They simply are not doing their job.

I also reminded of the Florida panther. The population of the Florida panther is fixed and about 100 and they live in a fixed island (meaning enclosed and a fixed size) habitat. Commercial development continues to take place in Florida placing ever more pressure on the habitat of the Florida panther. There are more buildings, more roads and more people in the same space. What is the wildlife agency doing in Florida to protect their precious cougar? Is someone getting backhanders? And I'm cynical but that is the way it seems to me.

Featured Post

i hate cats

i hate cats, no i hate f**k**g cats is what some people say when they dislike cats. But they nearly always don't explain why. It appe...

Popular posts