NationStates Jolt Archive

Not as simple a question as it sounds.While most people would agree that 'sports' such as dog fighting and badger baiting should be outlawed, there are people who would argue that deer hunting and fox hunting should remain as part of 'our' shared heritage.Me, I have attended a coursing event in which the wager is placed on which dog turns the hare first.I did not find it very intresting as I am really not a betting person.My question is what constitutes a blood sport and what type should be banned.

Pardon the spelling and grammer.

If you are going to eat what you kill and you aren't going to hunt endangered species (or humans), then I don't have a problem with it. I have a huge problem with trophy hunters that will kill a 12 point buck just for it's head.

Anything involving Troy Lee Gentry and a bear - what kind of a pathetic excuse for a 'sportsman' would do this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6190590.stm

Anything involving Troy Lee Gentry and a bear - what kind of a pathetic excuse for a 'sportsman' would do this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6190590.stm

To be fair, I have more respect for a guy who hunts a bear with a bow and arrow than a guy who hunts one with a gun.

If you are going to eat what you kill and you aren't going to hunt endangered species (or humans), then I don't have a problem with it. I have a huge problem with trophy hunters that will kill a 12 point buck just for it's head.

I've got to pretty much agree. Sports where the killing of the animal serves a purpose make sense. Fox hunting, despite all the ritual and rigmarole, actually does serve to reduce the population of a pest animal. Likewise, the taking of a deer to provide a freezer full of venison is perfectly acceptable. But what's the point of killing something you're neither going to eat nor that is causing problems? Might as well be target shooting.

The only time I've been involved in a hunt that was even slightly outside these boundaries was when I participated in the hunting of a rogue Lion in Kenya. But that wasn't sport; it was the entire local village, a team of rangers, and anybody they could rope in who knew one end of a gun from another, going out to kill this one man-eater. It worked, too. One of the rangers got him in the head with his .454; neatest shot under pressure I've ever seen.

True that some hunting is very necessary.I have had to shoot dogs in the past who have torn apart a heard of sheep.Cannot see the point of fox hunting thougt.It tears up land, damages hedge rows and is kind of a cruel way to kill a fox.Surely a shot gun would be a better way.

True that some hunting is very necessary.I have had to shoot dogs in the past who have torn apart a heard of sheep.Cannot see the point of fox hunting thougt.It tears up land, damages hedge rows and is kind of a cruel way to kill a fox.Surely a shot gun would be a better way.

I doubt it's especially cruel. Sure, the fox gets torn apart by the hounds, but frankly that would be a pretty quick way to go for something it's size. Plus, I understand the fox has about a fifty-fifty chance of getting away.

The riders have their fun, the dogs get some exercise and the vermin is removed (or not). It may not be the most efficient way to get rid of a fox, but I really don't see the harm.

You kill it, you grill it. That's pretty much how I feel about the "sport" of hunting. You knock off a 12-point buck and take its head? Well, cowboy, I hope you like venison (and actually, it's pretty good stuff.) Killing a deer and using it for food has the added benefit of not having to buy nearly as much meat for a while, and we all know how the cost of meat can add up.

I'm not saying you have to use every part of an animal you kill, but be reasonable now. Killing a deer, cutting off its head, and leaving it to rot in an areas where it has few predators is just inane. Killing a deer, cutting off its head, and eating venison for a couple of weeks is a capital idea.

Not as simple a question as it sounds.While most people would agree that 'sports' such as dog fighting and badger baiting should be outlawed, there are people who would argue that deer hunting and fox hunting should remain as part of 'our' shared heritage.Me, I have attended a coursing event in which the wager is placed on which dog turns the hare first.I did not find it very intresting as I am really not a betting person.My question is what constitutes a blood sport and what type should be banned.

Pardon the spelling and grammer.

no i dont think that blood sports should be banned. they should be regulated to minimize the cruelty of a cruel sport (such as no razors on the legs of fighting cocks).

hunting needs to be regulated so as to avoid decimating wild populations. i have no problem with fox hunting. foxes need to be controlled. if people want to do that by using ritualized hunting, thats fine by me. being dressed funny doesnt make it any crueler.

Badger Baiting? What the hell is that?

Badger Baiting? What the hell is that?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badger-baiting

Badger Baiting? What the hell is that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badger_baiting

It was pretty nasty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badger_baiting

It was pretty nasty.
Still happens.Several prosecutions have been brought against people in recent years for that and dog fighting.

Not as simple a question as it sounds.While most people would agree that 'sports' such as dog fighting and badger baiting should be outlawed,

Why?

Non-human animals are not creatures with rights of their own; they are property--and, like any property, the owner has every right to dispose of it as he pleases. Any laws to the contrary are illegitimate and null and void.

Why?

Non-human animals are not creatures with rights of their own; they are property--and, like any property, the owner has every right to dispose of it as he pleases. Any laws to the contrary are illegitimate and null and void.

Untrue on the face of it, and untrue in depth. We do NOT have the right to dispose of our property wohever we feel like it. Oh, certainly, we may destroy most things we own - but to knock down your house you must have council or other local governement approval, to dispose of your car or other large items you must do so in an approved fashion, and anything toxic you own must be properly disposed of too. There is NO right to dispose of property as we please.

If that property is an animal, we have laws to prevent cruel or inhumane treatment. You can shoot your dog - but if you let it starve to death you'll find yourself prosecuted. And quite properly so.

No banning! Bans infringe upon our rights/civil liberties!! If you wish to take part in a 'blood' sport then, by all means, do so! If 'blood' sports upset, repulse, or disgust you, don't take part in em'! Banning should be banned!!!

Untrue on the face of it, and untrue in depth. We do NOT have the right to dispose of our property wohever we feel like it. Oh, certainly, we may destroy most things we own - but to knock down your house you must have council or other local governement approval, to dispose of your car or other large items you must do so in an approved fashion, and anything toxic you own must be properly disposed of too. There is NO right to dispose of property as we please.
Yes, there is. Please pay attention to my entire post.

Whether or not one has a right to do something is independent of that act's status in civil or criminal law. If a law forbids something that one does indeed have a right to do, then that law is in VIOLATION of one's rights, and is therefore illegitimate and null and void.

Yes, there is. Please pay attention to my entire post.

Whether or not one has a right to do something is independent of that act's status in civil or criminal law. If a law forbids something that one does indeed have a right to do, then that law is in VIOLATION of one's rights, and is therefore illegitimate and null and void.

What a load of libertarianist crap. Using that sort of non-logic, one can justify any action or crime.

Rights come from the agreement of the populace and the government that rights exist, and precisely what they are is similarly developed from the general consensus of the governed and governing. It is from those sources that English and Scottish Common Law developed, and it is by and large from those sources and the writings of 17th and 18th century philosophers on the subject that the rights of people have been enumerated since, such as in the US Bill of Rights and the French Declarations of the Rights of Man.

Rights not acknowledged in law or covenant DO NOT EXIST. Indeed, the most fundamental of ALL rights is rule of law - for without that, no one has ANY rights.

What a load of libertarianist crap. Using that sort of non-logic, one can justify any action or crime.
That assumes that what is and is not a right is a matter of subjective opinion rather than objective fact, which is simply incorrect.

Rights come from the agreement of the populace and the government that rights exist

Wrong.

As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved, the source of one's rights is his existence as a human being.

I do agree that cruelty should be prevented whenever possible. However, there is a distinct difference between hunting and other "blood sports."

In standard gun or bow hunting, there is a significant chance that the hunter can strike an instant or at least rapid killing blow. (And, as earlier stated, the justification of eating is also present.) Even (perhaps especially) being attacked by a group of large, specially-trained hounds (as in fox hunting) would be a fairly quick way to go.

If we compare that to other "sports" there is a huge difference. If an animal fight ends in the first thirty seconds, with one combatant quickly killing the other, it's isn't worth the price of admission. There's no drama to it, there's no show. This gives those who run cock fights or badger baiting a strong incentive to draw out the violence. This also draws out the suffering of the animals involved, qualifying as much more cruel.

On a side note: NSG seems to have plenty of hardcore libertarian types, doesn't it? Seems a bit odd to me, as a Canadian, where extreme libertarianism is fairly rare.

killing animals for sport is not only 'wrong' but pointless. if you kill a non-threatening animal you should eat it. waste of meat. i hate wasters.

That assumes that what is and is not a right is a matter of subjective opinion rather than objective fact, which is simply incorrect.



Now you're just being ridiculous. Rights do not objectively exist, any more than ANY human mores do - they are conventions of the society we live in. Change the culture, and you change the rights considered valid - or even the concept of a right existing at all.

The term "objective fact" cannot be applied to ANY social construct, since it exists solely in our minds. Therefore, rights are SUBJECTIVE, and equally obviously, what rights exist are also subjective.

As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved, the source of one's rights is his existence as a human being.

Oh, please. I like Rand, and I generally agree with her proposition that the drive and ego of a human being is among the most powerful and influential forces in our society, and further, that the individual is more important than the society as a whole.
But her philosophies and concepts cannot be considered "proof" of anything other than her own influential views being hers. Rights do not magically spring into existence, independent of the society and culture that form them and give them meaning. And any right not acknowledged by the society, culture and government, cannot be considered valid.

Not as simple a question as it sounds.While most people would agree that 'sports' such as dog fighting and badger baiting should be outlawed, there are people who would argue that deer hunting and fox hunting should remain as part of 'our' shared heritage.Me, I have attended a coursing event in which the wager is placed on which dog turns the hare first.I did not find it very intresting as I am really not a betting person.My question is what constitutes a blood sport and what type should be banned.

Pardon the spelling and grammer.

I dunno where you're from, but in the UK all blood-sports involving dogs etc. are banned. Fox-hunting, badger baiting, dog fighting, hare coursing and cock fighting are all illegal thank fuck. Shooting stuff is still legal though (depending on what it is).

women want to sleep with you if they see you beat up a wiseal.
ferrets? they're gone in seconds, no one wants to see that.

Now you're just being ridiculous. Rights do not objectively exist, any more than ANY human mores do - they are conventions of the society we live in. Change the culture, and you change the rights considered valid - or even the concept of a right existing at all.

The term "objective fact" cannot be applied to ANY social construct, since it exists solely in our minds. Therefore, rights are SUBJECTIVE, and equally obviously, what rights exist are also subjective.

Then you are rejecting the essence of Rand's argument--the metaphysical basis from which every other argument of hers necessarily follows.

And Rand has been logically proven correct; therefore, you are wrong.

Then you are rejecting the essence of Rand's argument--the metaphysical basis from which every other argument of hers necessarily follows.

And Rand has been logically proven correct; therefore, you are wrong.

All metaphysics is a lie. Anything based on metaphysics is equally a lie.

As for logic, it has been logically proven that black is white. Logic is merely a way to be wrong with confidence.

Still, post this so called "proof". I'd put money on being able to debunk it in under five minutes.

If you are going to eat what you kill and you aren't going to hunt endangered species (or humans), then I don't have a problem with it. I have a huge problem with trophy hunters that will kill a 12 point buck just for it's head.

I agree with the basic sentemient of this posts as to hunting, in many cases human is actually necesary due to our having killed off the pretators in the area that would other wise keep the animal population in check also farmers ought to be able to defend their crops from wild animals consuming them.