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

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.