Shooting wild goats

If the meat and pelt will be used I see no issue. If its done just for the hell of it then I see an issue.
 
Why not tempt the goat over with some goat food and then wack it over the head with a hammer,

Was it a particularly stealthy and cunning goat?
 
They've apparently been in the UK for a few thousand years, but are still non-native/invasive?

I think it would be hypocritical to condemn it while also being a meat eater (if they're not endangered and allowed to be killed, certainly deer do need to be managed in this way with wolves no longer being present), though I do find the photos a bit distasteful.

The calls for changing the law seem to have been prompted by the photo itself, this seems a bit silly and more of an emotional reaction rather than a serious reason to change the law... if you're going to allow hunting (for population control of deer or of apparent non-native species) then some people might photograph it. I'm not sure I'd want to see controls introduced on the photography of otherwise legal activities.

I guess there is some argument also that people don't like the idea of others deriving enjoyment from the killing of deer, goats etc.. perhaps the population control could be carried out by game keepers etc... But wealthy hunters from the US do bring in revenue to these areas and if the deer (or goats) are to be shot anyway then it makes little difference.
 
We're arguing about the aesthetics here, what else should we ban because we find it distasteful to look at? Personally I could live without Reality TV Celebs, any chance of a ban?

If you accept they have to be killed and it is done in a manner that is not unnecessarily cruel why is it a problem. I don't find it attractive but I don't think freedoms should be curtailed on the basis of my aesthetic preferences either.
 
Let's be honest, anyone shooting anything for pleasure is more than likely suffering from an inferiority complex.
 
It was listening about this on the radio yesterday, I think most of the anger is due to the very North American culture of posing by the kills. If they hadn't done that I doubt there would be much press.
 
CREATIVE!11 said:
I don't get the fascination with killing things just for the sake of it.....
Click to expand...

Because there's nothing more alpha than shooting at a defenseless animal while hiding in a bush 200 yards away...


































seh6p.gif
 
I can understand culling and other reasons but i dont agree with the attitude a lot of trophy hunters take. There isn't really anything that needs to be done though, she committed no crime.

Slam62 said:
Why not tempt the goat over with some goat food and then wack it over the head with a hammer,

Was it a particularly stealthy and cunning goat?
Click to expand...

If you managed to kill these goats like that, then i would be impressed. Hell, i would be surprised if you could do it before running out of breath even if it didnt run away. These things spend a fair amount of time ramming their skulls against each other for dominance.
 
PlacidCasual said:
We're arguing about the aesthetics here, what else should we ban because we find it distasteful to look at? Personally I could live without Reality TV Celebs, any chance of a ban?

If you accept they have to be killed and it is done in a manner that is not unnecessarily cruel why is it a problem. I don't find it attractive but I don't think freedoms should be curtailed on the basis of my aesthetic preferences either.
Click to expand...


very well said, the world is full of things we don't like and we just have to shut up an accept that it's a thing.
 
StriderX said:
The only thing i disagree with is the strange narcissism to take a ******* picture with it, why can't people just do thing's themselves for themselves or immediate locality? Why does the world need to know you've traveled thousands of miles to kill another countries animalia?

As long as the animal is old, made for food, diseased, imminent danger to others or whatever, it's fine in mein eyes. Though a better solution may be to destroy the invasive species altogether or add a predator to do the dirty.
Click to expand...
Why can't the human be the predator? It's ok if we artificially introduce a predator to kill them, but killing them ourselves is too much. :rolleyes:
 
PlacidCasual said:
We're arguing about the aesthetics here, what else should we ban because we find it distasteful to look at? Personally I could live without Reality TV Celebs, any chance of a ban?

If you accept they have to be killed and it is done in a manner that is not unnecessarily cruel why is it a problem. I don't find it attractive but I don't think freedoms should be curtailed on the basis of my aesthetic preferences either.
Click to expand...


What about fake child porn? Is that acceptable just because it is aesthetics?
 
D.P. said:
What about fake child porn? Is that acceptable just because it is aesthetics?
Click to expand...

I don't know what the legal position is on that subject. My starting position would be that things shouldn't be banned unless there is net social harm, as in the harm of removing a freedom is less than the harm that freedom causes. And if there is net social harm there must also be popular consent. Now I can easily imagine popular consent for banning that but I haven't really thought about the net social harm, although I can imagine there is a compelling argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom