If he had to use his bare hands, then nature would at least have its chance to defend itself / escape.

If he wants to shoot moving targets, what wrong with a firing range? Or Virtua Cop?

I think the last 2 posters have just destroyed the human race in there "natural world- bare hands" statements. Man having the "UpperHand" on other species have aways been hunters, be it with rock, clubs, spears, arrows or bullets. Humans that normally kill with there bare hands are normally other humans.
I shoot wildlife of the photography kind in some remote parts of Scotland where I see at first hand where hunting is the norm and natural part of the landscape.
I,m not into this urbanised hypocritical rubbish stuff............If anyone HERE eats mass produced, hormone induced, meat or fish that have lived under un natural environmemts, then killed by electricity or by a bolt through the brain, don't bother answering this post.

Hunting to survive, as has been the case through the majority of history, is a completely different matter to hunting for sport.



That's the same kind of bull argument thrown up by the supporters of fox hunting, and that wasn't a natural part of the landscape either. There's a reported problem with badgers spreading bovine tb, a problem a cull may help solve, why doesn't he hunt badgers instead?

I also note you avoid commenting on the suggestion that these animals are bred to be hunted...

Methinks you're missing the point, Judder Man...

We're talking about an amateur taking pot-shots at real creatures. The professionals, those who rear or farm animals for the provision of food to the masses, make very few mistakes in the way they stun or kill animals so that their suffering is minimal. Sure, there's the odd mistake, but Elmer Fudd here is far more likely to increase the suffering of an animal many times before he lands a killer blow or shot.

That is needless, and as I said, what's the matter with a firing range?

Clay doesn't digest quite as well as a delicious steak?

Leave Cunningham's weight problem out of this.

He's been killing for food since he was a kid. Didn't you read the article? I'd hardly call him an amateur! I would have thought by now he was quite the expert.

He can come and cull the damn pigeons around my house. They crap all over the place.

And he has a professional licence under strict laws to hunt.

We are in a rural group in the lake district and most of us are having a really good laugh at the attention and reactions from a few on this board.
Most of our wildlife group are assuming that some of the protesters don,t have a clue about wildlife and the nearest they have been to it is perhaps a joint of beef or a fish fillet at the supermarket counter.
Maybe people should investigate the processes of animal stock going to the cattle market then to the slaughterhouse and the stresses to the animal concluding in terror.
Perhaps we should not eat animal at all, and just kill and eat one another......using our bare hands.

Did any one watch "Monty Halls's Hebridian Escape" Last night?

He was deer stalking with the area Laird and game keeper. They shot a stag and it didn't seem particulary cruel to me.

However, in another scene he went fishing. Sicko.

Do you know what though? They'd have an even better life if some pr!ck with a gun didn't take it upon himself to end it!

Tell you what. You're going to die someday and other people have it far worse anyway, so I'll take it you'll have no objection if I come and slaughter you while you innocently go about your business.

No, I'll bother answering it if you don't mind. It's simple really. Do 2 wrongs make a right in your book?

do you eat meat? or have any leather clothes or furniture or car interior?

Indeed I do. Are you going to make the point that the animals suffer in production? I'm well aware of that and take no pleasure from it. Therin lies the difference.

Believe it or not Keiron won't starve if he stops killing animals for fun. Nowhere on that video did he even pretend that survivial is the reason he does it. Rather, it's because he likes the "thrill" of killing something defenceless. Do you think he would be so keen if they offered him the chance to enter an enclosure with a starving Lion armed with just a club? I think we know the answer...

Mate, whatever your views on violence, for comparison, I think you'll agree that there's a world of difference between entering a cage or ring to take on someone in an evenly matched contest and beating up an old Lady for fun. Or am I wrong in that assumption?

Or to relate it to the "do you eat meat" statement. There's a world of difference between killing a man in War in order to survive and killing one that is no threat to you for the "thrill of it". Or, again, do you not think so?

Its not my bag, but i don't have anytime for people who don't want animals to be hunted or hurt, but then happily use the produce from it, it is very hypocritical, however you choose to sugarcoat it