OK, lets have some controversy?

[cee-dee]

I've just listened to a tirade by a Labour MP!!!!

It was about "Sporting Interests" in the countryside. He was attacking Grouse shooting (What a co-incidence, it's The Glorious Twelfth today), Pheasant shooting and Fox hunting. He was making stupid claims about "The Environment" and habitats.

He was claiming that the burning of Heather (on Grouse moors) damages the environment and habitats. Now then... there's a couple of ways of burning Heather, 1/ with the wind and 2/ against the wind. After establishing a regular cycle of burning, (every 15 years?), the idea is to burn with the wind for a "quick burn" so that the light growth is burned off but the roots and stems don't get damaged and the heather quickly produces new, healthy growth which the Grouse "like" and that the Heather doesn't "get leggy". Burning with the wind is also often done after a period of wet weather so that with a drying wind, the dry, light growth burns but the roots and damp ground is unharmed.

Burning against the wind can damage the roots and seeds as the burn is more intense and burns off leggy, woody stems but can also spread down in to the peaty layers.

Usually, controlled burning is done in sections in cycles, not the whole moor at once! As well as providing fresh new Heather by burning, many estates also lay down medicated grit to aid the Grouse and reduce parasites.

Moving on to Pheasant shooting, what that bloke didn't realise is that a lot of the countryside we see today is a mix of woodland and farm land and the way it is isn't a co-incidence. A lot of it was planned with "sporting" in mind. Without any "sporting" interests, the land would have been cleared of woods for farm land and there's be no "habitats"!!

Moving on to fox hunting, I've never been in favour of chasing a Fox for miles and letting the hounds rip it to pieces but again, a lot of the land was laid out with "sporting" in mind.

Now the tirade that I heard seemed to me to be more to do with clamping down on "The Rich" than anything to do with "The Evironment and Habitats". It sounded more like populist jealousy. If there were no gamekeepers, poachers of all sorts would have free reign to do whatever they wanted without fear of being seen or caught. Today, poachers are highly mobile and travel many miles to do what they do.

That ranting chap seems to want to tell landowners what to do with their land on the back of buzz-words "habitats, global warming, the environment" but seems to either forget or not know that the land is a mix of it all for good reason.

I wonder if he's also in favour of the "animal rights" activists? The ones that go round doing what they think will "stop" what they consider to be "wrong". They're the ones that went round releasing Mink from the Mink farms which have now spread everywhere causing damage to what was our existing wildlife. The same ones that have now started attacking Game farms and have recently caused the deaths of thousands of young birds.

It wouldn't surprise me if they were behind the shooting of (for instance) Red Kites trying to get the gamekeeprs the blame for it!!

Before anyone asks, NO, I don't go foxhunting, shooting Grouse or Pheasants.

So, it's over to the RT for comment?

[lambsy_uk]

“Are you really claiming that if an activity is considered ‘fun’ by those participating then that is justification for the act?”

For them it is justification yes! I’d guess that for most sports or pursuits enjoyment is a large part of the motivation to partake.

“Those taking part in **bleep** fighting, hare coursing and dog fighting no doubt consider it fun - are these also justifiable pastimes in your opinion?”

The people taking part may feel they are justifiable past times whereas others, including myself in some cases disagree. But this does not make one group ultimately right or wrong; just a difference of opinion.

What you need to realise is that certain activities are deep within us, they are part of the human condition. Hunting is as old as the hills, fighting may well be too, it’s not easy to just knock it out of people and legislating against it won’t change the human nature in a hurry to want to pursuit such activities.


“Maybe you consider being a “good shot” is a “human quality” - I think you are mixing a skill up with a quality.”


I can understand that opinion but I believe it is valid to believe having such a good skill can also be considered a good quality. Being a good shot or good at hunting would have been a quality very important to a man and perhaps a mate at one time, and perhaps still is.

[upthecreekyetagain]

I accept that those who partake in blood sports see the fun element as justification for their actions.  However we live in a democratic society which sets a level of moral standards and enacts those standards via legal statutes.  

Those moral standards change over time and so do the laws that reflect those changes.  At the moment pheasant and other bird shoots are still lawful but as the wider public become more aware of them I expect that in time they will follow the likes of hare coursing and become illegal - which in my opinion will be no bad thing.

Certainly hunting is, if you like, inbred in many ways in human nature but there is a world of difference, again in my opinion, between hunting for fun and hunting for food.  

Simply put, I believe that harming or killing any animal for “fun” is morally wrong. 

[fallen-archie]

I agree with creeky, killing any animal for fun is abhorrent, however the shooting of clays in a variety of ways does offer an opportunity to get out of doors and be competitive, just as much as I do not think that trail hunting should be banned! If properly applied it can replace fox hunting without harming anything.

[lambsy_uk]

Thanks for the reply Creeky, as you say a democratic society sets a level of moral standard that becomes upheld by law and over time as things come to the attention of a wider public then yes perhaps certain pursuits may follow the way of Hare Coursing and **bleep** Fighting. I questioned the relevance of the Century we are in because I’d have thought in no small way the advancement of communication technology and education could be identified as factors in the progression of such attitudes and laws rather than the Century number. What may trouble some is how morality is established. It seems there’s always going to be some interest group pressuring the law makers to see things their way. Once a victory is won on fighting they turn to hunting. Soon will be horse and dog racing, then show jumping and perhaps dog agility. Snail racing, meat eating; is there any end to it?

[upthecreekyetagain]

“Is there any end to it?” - Probably not - moral standards are constantly changing. 

In my relatively short life time I have seen massive changes in standards and opinions from making homosexuality legal to changes in animal welfare and attitudes towards racial, religious and sexual bigotry and the ending of the death penalty. 

What we have to be aware of though is that not all changes are necessarily for the common good despite being supported by a majority.  You only have to look at Germany in the thirties and how propaganda and political manipulation changed the general attitude towards the Jews and made statutory changes acceptable to the majority.

Personally I’d have no problem with the outlawing of horse and dog racing, show jumping and even snail racing but I accept that I am probably in a minority regarding those and have to accept societies moral judgement of them.  That doesn’t mean I shouldn’t be able to speak up against them and encourage others to do so.  

If we try to repress the minority from expressing their moral stance then there is nothing to stop extreme views from becoming, or remaining, the majority opinion.

[cee-dee]

Looking at things a different way.... if some forms of animal "sport" were outlawed, many of those animals would have "no further use" so what would happen to them?

Taken to extreme, keeping horses as "pets" and riding them could also be construed as worthy of "outlawing" so where do you stop?

[upthecreekyetagain]

You’re right, keeping horses as pets, for that matter keeping any animal as a pet could be “construed as worthy of ‘outlawing’.

All the pets we have ever “owned” have come to us one way or the other because animals have been kept as pets.  We would certainly never abandon them but likewise we’d never breed them to produce more pets.

The moral argument for keeping a pet is in many ways similar to that of keeping animals for food.  For me, so long as those animals are treated well and killed in a humane way when necessary then I don’t have a problem - others have a different point of view -  if and when they become the viewpoint of the majority then I will abide by that.

[lambsy_uk]

I believe we’ve demonstrated that following the viewpoint of the majority can be problematic.

[astrologica]

Lambsy...if you are referring to our present political predicament, it would have been a lot less problematic if the viewpoint of the majority had been followed. 

[cee-dee]

We see this all the time on many fronts. A "decision" is made, when it's not what some want to hear, they'll move mountains in the pursuit of their own agenda in a bid to prove "it" was or "they" were wrong.

[lambsy_uk]

No I wasn’t referring to our present political predicament, Creeky mentioned the Nazis; I’m sure there’s many other historical examples; Communist Russia for one. Majority rule can become tyranny.

[cee-dee]

Doesn't tyranny force the hand of "the majority"?

[lambsy_uk]

It can do.

[maxmintomus]

When I read the title of this thread I foolishly thought it was going to be sumfink interesting