Guys "urban hunt" a dog with crossbow: your thoughts?

Reply 20

username1214455

21

These guys should be hunted with a crossbow.

Hunting is wrong, no matter what.

Reply 21

RF_PineMarten

18

Original post by R Dragon

Does it honestly matter for the animal being hunted whether or not the hunter has a licence? I don't think it being legitimate or not really matters.

Why is it disgusting? So a rabbit being hunted in the Amazon forest by bandits with a cross-bow is not as disgusting?

Legitimate hunting has regulations - which species can be taken, what time of year, what guns can be used, etc. And it is done for good reasons.

Crossbow hunting isn't something I would consider legitimate. Crossbows are much more likely to injure instead of kill. And hunting someone's pet is certainly not legitimate either, regardless of what method is used.

Reply 22

IFoundWonderland

19

Animals should not ever be hunted for fun. There is a difference between hunting for food and hunting as a means of amusement. By killing an animal as part of a game, you are demeaning the value of life and that is disgusting.

Reply 23

indigobluesss

OP

20

Original post by ILovePancakes

Animals should not ever be hunted for fun. There is a difference between hunting for food and hunting as a means of amusement. By killing an animal as part of a game, you are demeaning the value of life and that is disgusting.

Clearly its value wasn't that high if it's going to be killed regardless. I don't think the animal is able to tell whether it was killed for fun or food, I don't think it'd matter to the animal

Reply 24

indigobluesss

OP

20

Original post by RFowler

Legitimate hunting has regulations - which species can be taken, what time of year, what guns can be used, etc. And it is done for good reasons.

Crossbow hunting isn't something I would consider legitimate. Crossbows are much more likely to injure instead of kill. And hunting someone's pet is certainly not legitimate either, regardless of what method is used.

Those regulations are set in place primarily to prevent the species from going extinct. The regulations don't care about the well-being of individual animals. So in the animal's view, if it's going to die, why would it matter whether the rest of its species survived or not?

What about earlier in the past, when humans only had bows and spears to hunt animals, would you consider that illegitimate?

Reply 25

Gwilym101

17

Original post by R Dragon

What about the people living in the forest, the tribal people with no access to guns, are they less humane for using spears to hunt?

Pfft, I've seen some domesticated deer on youtube, I don't know what point you're trying to raise.

I think it's debatable whether or not a pet is a member of the family, but ok.

So, just because dogs don't usually get culled, it means they're exempt from hunting practices?

A) Yes, because using more primitive weapons means the animal dies slower and suffers more, on the other hand it is more likely the animal will escape.

B) You weren't talking about domesticated deer (which typically refers to deer that are accustomed to humans, not actually domesticated animals), you were talking about wild ones, so my point still stands. A wild deer would typically run away or keep its distance from people because they're a threat. A domesticated dog would more likely move towards a human than away from it. It's not hunting, if the animal is coming over to you willingly.

C) Most pet owners consider pets to be part of the family.

D) My point was that deers are killed at the moment in this country for population control, that's why there are fewer restrictions on hunting them and talks of trying to reintroduce Wolves or Lynx's back to the UK so there is a predator that can control their population, significant proportions of the deer population are going to be killed, so if some are hunted makes little difference. That video was just two ***** on a moped who decided to shoot a dog, it wasn't hunting.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 26

IFoundWonderland

19

Original post by R Dragon

Clearly its value wasn't that high if it's going to be killed regardless. I don't think the animal is able to tell whether it was killed for fun or food, I don't think it'd matter to the animal

Your post doesn't make sense.

It has nothing to do with the animal being able to tell whether its being killed for fun or food. It's to do with morality.

Reply 27

hdaindak

11

It's no worse it's all ****ing sick I hop people who hunt for fun will one day die a slow painful death

Reply 28

yo radical one

6

Utterly disgusting behaviour

At the same time, there is no moral difference between this and people in the countryside hunting foxes, except the people of this country are more likely to accept one and not the other, due to their social conditioning.

Reply 29

yo radical one

6

Original post by R Dragon

Clearly its value wasn't that high if it's going to be killed regardless. I don't think the animal is able to tell whether it was killed for fun or food, I don't think it'd matter to the animal

It does matter.

The human needing food to eat takes precedence over the animal's life, which is why it's acceptable to kill for food, but a human wanting to have enjoyment does not, which is why it's not acceptable to kill for fun.

Reply 30

De Chirico

9

You see a lot of cruelty to animals in places like China. I've seen people driving scooters in SE Asia with loads of half dead puppies / cats stuffed into a tiny cage on the front, on the way to the market.

I wonder what this guy's reason for killing that dog was.

Guys "urban hunt" a dog with crossbow: your thoughts?

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you