Animal cruelty case - some ppl....

[Flyer]

[quote="TassieTiger] wildlife is a valuable resource in its own right. [/quote]

Must be nice to live in a state where shootable game is a 'valuable resource" mate. In QLD, we have the worlds largest populations of pigs, estimates are they outnumber people 2-1. Between them and cats they take out an estimated 1 million native animals a year. Then there are the goats, donkeys, horses, camels, scrub bulls etc. People want to shoot them on sight, shoot them for sport, shoot them for trophies or leave them to rot not only are they are enjoying their sport, they are doing the world a favor. Win Win.[/quote][/quote][/quote]

Most people make the distinction between native wildlife and introduced species. There is probably another argument to be had that most introduced species are now part of our ecosystem as we have almost no chance of eradicating them and they will continue to thrive on this continent. But whatever the reason, there is at least some justification in eradicating ferals. And if you are killing ferals (for whatever reason), then I'd like to think most decent human beings are not in the business of prolonging their deaths – and certainly not proloning death for their own amusement.

[mickb]

[
Most people make the distinction between native wildlife and introduced species. .

The point I was making was some states dont have 'shootable native wildlife' or very little. In QLD if it is shootable, its probably introduced. I am not sure what the situation is in Tasmania, Tas indicates he can hunt wallabies unless I was mistaken? In QLD that is not possible, I cant think of any natives we can shoot recreationally, maybe some waterfowl are still legal? And any permanence to animals being here should continue to be resisted.

[Flyer]

And you could also say a great many crimes cause pain, suffering, deliberate harm to people, like breaking a guys jaw, or arm, or stealing grandmas pension money. But not all crimes apply torture to the charge list for reasons it falls under a specific application and to over apply it yoyu risk it becomeing superflous.

My opinion is the application is overused for a case of running down animals. Frankly its sensationlaism. In fact I would not even have it in relation to animals any more than I would have 'murder' against an animal.

This is just my position sorry. You dont have to agree with it, but at least say you understand the words because I have written it three times now.

cruel
[ kroo-uhl ]
SEE SYNONYMS FOR cruel ON THESAURUS.COM
adjective, cru·el·er, cru·el·est.
willfully or knowingly causing pain or distress to others.
enjoying the pain or distress of others: the cruel spectators of the gladiatorial contests.
causing or marked by great pain or distress: a cruel remark; a cruel affliction.
rigid; stern; strict; unrelentingly severe.

Answered above, again.

As for the drug dealer reference: people who take drugs have a choice in the matter
Defenceless animals don't have a say.

No 'kids' are not 'people' being seen to have a choice in 'such matters', as they are minors. Unless you are saying they have a choice in being abused , coercion, and could just seek help to avoid it.

Read my first paragraph again. We can agree to disagree, but at least if we understand one anothers position, the semantics you are so worried about will reduce about 95%.

In this case, it's a legal definition. And – personally – I don't see it is a big stretch from action to legal definition. If you chased a mother and infant with a car, swerving across the road as they were trying to run away, then hit them, then left the mother to die on the side of the road while the infant slowly died of hypothermia next to her, then that is a form of torture in anyone's language.

I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing, and I do take your point about the word "torture" conjuring up a slow and prolonged act of cruelty, but my opinion is the charges were correct and I don't think it takes away from other crimes such as one-punch assault or theft (though in those cases, no-one has lost their life).

As for the drug dealer reference, we were all kids once – some of us took drugs or tried to sneak into the pub – and while we were certainly impressionable minors, there was at least an element of free choice in the matter, even under peer pressure. It's not really the same as someone lining you up with a car trying to maim or kill you. If drug dealers did that, they'd have no customers!

I'm not saying I don't understand what you are saying, either. I'm saying I disagree with your interpretation. At least we are both free to do that – spare a thought for the poor animals that had no say and the sods that got enjoyment out of their suffering.

[mickb]

[

Not excusing these guys legally or morally but dont most hunters kill for sport or a bit of fun. I am not eating 98% of the stuff I shoot or have shot either, and dont really feel like I need to be studied because of it.

Do you think so? Considering the large number of sporting shooters who don't even hunt – or hunt only very occassionally – I'd almost be willing to bet that at least in some parts of the country, on any given weekend, there are more people shooting at paper, steel and clay targets than at living things.

Of those that are, how many are shooting ferals?

Maybe you're right – maybe there are those who enjoy killing and use the above as an excuse – but I'd like to think that most shooters have enough respect for life that they do it for the right reasons and not simply to destroy another living creature for the "fun" of it.

Flyer for a guy who doesnt like semantics, you certainly quote semantically. Read my post above mate. I said most hunters, not shooters. Your point was shooters who dont even hunt. Ergo we arent on opposite sides for this particular point because yours didnt address mine.
Also my comments on shooters were to grandad bushy and his reply was hunting related as well. He listed all the types of hunting to be precise.
How old are you?

[Flyer]

[
Most people make the distinction between native wildlife and introduced species. .

The point I was making was some states dont have 'shootable native wildlife' or very little. In QLD if it is shootable, its probably introduced. I am not sure what the situation is in Tasmania, Tas indicates he can hunt wallabies unless I was mistaken? In QLD that is not possible, I cant think of any natives we can shoot recreationally, maybe some waterfowl are still legal? And any permanence to animals being here should continue to be resisted.

Mate, it's the way of evolution. Dingoes were introduced and are now regarded as native. They killed the thylacine (Tassie Tiger) on the mainland leaving only the Tassy population left.

Everything came from somewhere – including us. It's a noble thought, but I don't think there's any more chance of us erradicating feral cats, pigs, goats, brumbies, camels, donkies, foxes, mallards, mice etc than there is of us erradicating cane toads. We have to live with our mistakes, and other species have to suffer for it. Sad bu true.

[Flyer]

Flyer for a guy who doesnt like semantics, you certainly quote semantically. Read my post above mate. I said most hunters, not shooters. Your point was shooters who dont even hunt. Ergo we arent on opposite sides for this particular point because yours didnt address mine.
Also my comments on shooters were to grandad bushy and his reply was hunting related as well. He listed all the types of hunting to be precise.

Fair point, which I concede. Though still somewhat disagree with for reasons already mentioned. But I'll leave it there.

How old are you?

Why do you ask?

[mickb]

In this case, it's a legal definition. And – personally – I don't see it is a big stretch from action to legal definition. If you chased a mother and infant with a car, swerving across the road as they were trying to run away, then hit them, then left the mother to die on the side of the road while the infant slowly died of hypothermia next to her, then that is a form of torture in anyone's language.I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing,

Well Im glad you are not arguing, because being you are quoting everything I post, even things I dont post to you, I worry you might collapse the sites bandwidth if you did actually start arguing

I do take your point about the word "torture" conjuring up a slow and prolonged act of cruelty,

No torture I attribute to an act by humans beings, under those definitions.

As for the drug dealer reference, we were all kids once – some of us took drugs or tried to sneak into the pub – and while we were certainly impressionable minors, there was at least an element of free choice in the matter, even under peer pressure.

No, try again. You sell alcohol to kids there is not seen to by 'free choice' in the laws eyes, the adult is culpable. You sell drugs to a kid or sexually abuse them it is the same.

I'm not saying I don't understand what you are saying, either. I'm saying I disagree with your interpretation. At least we are both free to do that – spare a thought for the poor animals that had no say and the sods that got enjoyment out of their suffering.

[mickb]

[
Everything came from somewhere – including us. It's a noble thought, but I don't think there's any more chance of us erradicating feral cats, pigs, goats, brumbies, camels, donkies, foxes, mallards, mice etc than there is of us erradicating cane toads. .

I agree but its fun trying

[Flyer]

There's nothing wrong with a bit of debate.

Again, on legal grounds, there is no argument from me. However it does not preclude the fact that minors still have some semblance of freedom of choice which those animals did not. I don't think we need to dwell on the fact that drug dealers manage to lure some children but not all precisely for this reason. That's why I don't see it as apples to apples.

Part of human evolution is defined by the way we treat animals (and our fellow man). As we have evloved, we have treated animals – and other humans – more humanely. There will always be exceptions, but on the whole we have. We don't lash peple for stealing bread or bait bulls and bears like we did 200 years ago, for example, and we often claim people are "barbaric" or "uncivilised" when believe they have treated animals cruely.

I don't think that's a coincidence.

[TassieTiger]

[quote="TassieTiger] wildlife is a valuable resource in its own right. [/quote]

Must be nice to live in a state where shootable game is a 'valuable resource" mate. In QLD, we have the worlds largest populations of pigs, estimates are they outnumber people 2-1. Between them and cats they take out an estimated 1 million native animals a year. Then there are the goats, donkeys, horses, camels, scrub bulls etc. People want to shoot them on sight, shoot them for sport, shoot them for trophies or leave them to rot not only are they are enjoying their sport, they are doing the world a favor. Win Win.[/quote]

As I said Mick - each to their own. We don’t have pigs in Tas nor foxes, nor camels (well there are a few camels in state parliament) - and I’d have no issues feeding the devils so to speak, by shooting these if they were present here. As you’ve said - they are prevalent destroyers of almost entire eco systems, so like cats - I’d not have any issue hunting them on behalf of my own understanding of preservation.

FYI only - Because Tas does not have any predation, wallaby’ populations get to extreme levels over here. An annual licence runs $23,00 and take is not limited. On country roads - you might see one dead wallaby every 100m at least... When numbers get really insane - organised govt shoots clear out number in the thousands and hunting is actively encouraged to prevent starvation etc. personally, once my freezers are full - I’m back to paper targets unless asked by a farmer to assist.

It’s weird how state to state Varies with wildlife - even kookaburras are on the “shoot on site” list in Tas, as an introduced pest - but again, I’m basically a hypocrite by electing to not shoot the burras I see...

[mickb]

Thanks for the info Tas. I knew you guys didnt have pigs, wasnt aware of the lack of foxes. We dont have them up here either, foxes that is. Btw I laughed when I realised I had been going at it with Flyer until two in the morning. This is what happens when you are off work I guess.