The animal might never have even come into existance in the first place, if it wasn't for the hunting area.

Are you going to eat him afterwards?

I notice you haven't responded to my examples. Are those choices as black and white as you would like to make this one? If not, why not?

The fact is you can't make the need to survive a black and white issue when comparing it with the "need" to hunt for fun (or sport, if you consider it such). Whichever way you look at it there is a moral aspect to any choice we make. And for your information this isn't hypocritical. It would be hypocritical if I condemned KC for hunting but thought it was ok for me to do it. The two examples you quote are not comparable but are seperate choices, one made in order to survive the other to enjoy the "thrill" of killing something. The only people who consider two seperate arguments as hypocritical are those that don't properly understand the meaning of the word.

I would be interested to hear your responses to the examples I gave in the previous post though, nevertheless.

And you might never have come into existance had your Mum and Dad not conceived you. Does this give them the right to kill you too? The animal exists. Once it does the choice is quite simply whether it is ok to end it's life for the sole entertainment of one individual. It's a moral choice for each person to make. I think he's a pr!ck as I said earlier.

Eat the lion, the poster or Keiron? I might just be able to stomach the Lion!

Joking aside, the issue is not about food. It's about a moral choice on whether entertainment or "the thrill" is sufficient reason to justify killing something.

He's been playing Rugby for years and struggles to pass a ball backwards. What on earth makes you think he might be able to shoot straight?

To achieve his DSC licence he needs to be a top marksmen, for example3 times in succession.

Well I don't have a leather sofa so I'm not sure of your analogy as it supposedly pertains to me. However, that aside, you still haven't responded to the examples I gave, so I can only assume it's because you can't. I suggest you study your own stance before condeming someone else as a bigot.

4 inches is a huge target.

Now if it had been 8mm targets I'd have been impressed.

Nice insult towards Cunningham, though. "Marksmen", insinuating there's enough of him to be more than one.

Fishsta................We at the working group at Haybridge Nature Reserve up here in Cumbria laughed at this particular paragraph the most............this is TOTAL GARBAGE.

Really?

You know what I find funny, you don't even know where you work. Bouth is in LANCASHIRE, not Cumbria.

See the signature.

[codePLACE NAME GRID COUNTY

Bouth SD3285 Lancashire[/code

In answer to your original question, killing is killing, just society determines which is morally acceptable. You may not have a leather sofa, but you will almost certainly have some animal based product in you daily life. It's all about choice, I don't hunt and I personally don't see how someone gets pleasure from it, but if thatsxwhat he does, it's not illegal, so go for it. My personal thoughts are that it's the same as fishing, but less painfull for the deer

Well, I don't [ithink[/i i was bred in order to help stock a game reserve, but now that you mention in, I better watch my back. 24.31103515625:10