So, should it be deemed by society to be unacceptable in the same way as it has fox hunting then you too would find it morally wrong? Are you saying you aren't able to make moral choices about what is right or wrong for yourself? Interesting standpoint. Your entitled to make it, I suppose, but it's a bizzare thing to admit to. Nevertheless...

Do you honestly think that being hunted and shot (if you think all shots are clean kills by the way you're being very naive!) isn't painful or distressing for the animal? This is your reasoned view is it? Based on what exactly; personal experience?

my point is that the deer will have had a good life upto the second it died, yes some shots dont kill, but the animal will be killed very quickly, whereas an animal in an slaughter house has been farmed and probably has at least some knowedge of whats coming, so which is worse? This comes from someone whose Dad owned a slaughterhouse, and yes everything possible is done to prevent suffering, but in my veiw, using personal experience, that what little suffering the animal does have is greater in a slaughterhouse than being shot in the wild.

Pretty much bang on there with your comments. Deer are free roaming animals, they go across rivers, jump dry stone walls run across roads etc etc. So trying to catch a couple to take to the slaughter house will be almost impossible.
If you did manage to capture a few and transport them they would be highly stressed and probably injure each other looking for a way to escape. Deer have an astute sense of sound and smell once they enter the area of the slaughterhouse they will smell blood and become terrified with a good chance of having a heart attack before the slaughter man gets his bolt gun.

I shoot wildlife photography and one of the most difficult is "shooting" deer, you have to stalk the deer knowing there grazing patterns, herd behaviour, some of the herd on the outer fringes tend to have a perception of man or predator when approaching under cover roughly about 60 metres, So Kieron Cunninghams "buzz and thrill" so to speak would be the ability of getting within this perception distance, which could take hours, the actual kill will be a controlled one with no room for error, his total relief or "enjoyment" as the tabloid papers say is that he has completed an instant kill.
If KC has a DMQ license then he will have to prepare and register the carcass, this involves testing the liver for any signs or presence of disease, very much similar to a slaughter man, this is a requirement by law prior to human consumption.

So why do we kill deer...........this is a man made problem, by introducing deer stock into areas that cannot sustain them. Eventually the herd gets too large and they destroy the ECO system, as they are free roaming they eventually destroy saplings and other wild life habitats. Centuries ago they would have reduced in numbers by predators like wolves and man.
I,m not aware of actually breeding deer for a sport shoot, as some people may have suggested.......if this is so, I should imagine the wildlife management authority would come down hard on them, as deer hunting has to carried out, without suffering and with the upmost discipline..........and not as a "shoot em up" as the newspaper media portray.

Thanks, I have no intention of telling people they should approve of hunting in all its forms and if they don't they're all pussies, hippies or niave city folk. It just really gets my back up when people react [iso[/i negetively as if the people taking part are (or should be) criminals.

From my standpoint, i'd probably reason that deer (even when owned) are traditionally and naturally wild roaming animals, whereas the other animals you mentioned aren't (on the whole). That would affect the startpoint point of my reasoning, i think, but if you were to then inform me that people that people in say Australia or America (where they do have wild roaming horses) are indeed doing it, then I'd say fair enough.
I also have a pet dog, so that would give me an emotional bias on that subject. Although I really wouldn't worry about people eating a bit of trapped wolf or fox.

As for the actual eating of horse and dog? I find it strange, but not offensive. I went to Vietnam a year ago and you'd see market stands with cooked dogs on, roughly quartered but with the head still on show. As a [idog person[/i, it didn't exactly sit well with me, but I'm sensible enough to realise that half the population of asia aren't evil just because they have slightly different take on food.

I think perhaps the difference between you and I is that I think its possible to hunt and still be respectful to nature and and eco system. I'm not someone who just doesn't care about animals.
Now, over in the seas of asia, certain shark populations have been decimated by over fishing for [ishark fin[/i to go in shark fin soup. The shark is caught, not killed, but the dorsel fin is chopped off and the shark dumped back into the water to bleed to death. This is a cruel death for the animal, its extremely wasteful as the rest of the shark is dumped (all the fisherman is worried about is the very high valued fin) and is also done without the consideration of the species population or ecosystem. For all these reasons I object to this, although you may think me hypocritical.