How can Prince William campaign against rhino poaching when he happily kills other animals for sport?

[Hammy02]

I genuinely can't get my head around this. Am I missing something?

Sadly the poaching of rhino has increased.
These are some stats online for number of rhinos poached (only for South Africa I think):
2005 13
2006 24
2007 17
2008 83
2009 122
2010 333
2011 448
2012 61 (end February)
162 (end March)
245 (first half of June)

Often by poor people - and normally a botch job. Poor marksmen, normally immobilise the rhino by shooting at its legs. All rhino shot regardless of age or if pregnant. Rhino horn is then cut off whilst rhino is still alive and the rhino is left to die afterwards.

Rhinos are seriously endangered.

To be honest I can't understand why anyone would consider that as being the same as hunting pheasants and deer for food.

Nice argument, Greataunt: profit over decency.

Boden - I don't know the details, so I could be very wrong, but my local butchers will have pheasants for sale during the hunting season, I assume they are 'left overs' from the hunts that the shooters and workers on the nearby estate don't want/can't eat. It seems odd that they aren't just sold, near us there is demand, and the local restaurants will suddenly be serving it.

Even if some are dumped, I don't see much difference with the amount of past 'sell by date' chicken breasts I used to have to collect off shelves at the end of shifts in my old supermarket days that were just thrown away.

"I'd rather eat a pheasant that I saw shot and my dog retrieved than a supermarket chicken with blisters on it's joints."

So would I. But it's not either one or th other, is it?

I think the two can be split into "what's not right for me" (hunting for sport) and "what's just wrong" (killing endangered species)

I wouldn't hunt for sport, ever, but that's because it isn't right for me. Poaching rhino, however, is simply not acceptable.

Sorry SoupDragon, but I think hunting for sport is just wrong!

i had to supress a when i heard him saying people should avoid the trade in ivory and rhino horn

will do then - never even seen these things let alone considered buying them

Killing anything for a jolly has to be seen as reprehensible surely?
Yet to see the 'fun' in gunning down terrified creatures who have their own consciousness. Whether they are endangered or not. I'm not endangered and I'd still be terrified.
Yes yes, treat animals better in food processing. Of course. This aspect of killing en mass needs looked at and is by no means perfect.
But yes op, I get it. And I agree. There is a moral aspect in killing if you don't have to. And yes, rhinos are endangered, so this matter is more urgent. Why is a birds life and consciousness and social and familial concepts any less important - unless you are in great need to feed family? Which pw is not. Nor are a lot of folk these days who hunt. Hunting is for the rich.

What rubbish to say that hunting is for the rich! I work in a call centre on a lowish income and have hunted for years, I just run a very old car, rarely have holidays (and don't have children!)- so I can afford to keep a horse and hunt. It's about priorities! I am not unusual, there is a broad range of people who hunt from very poor to wealthy. I do not see sport hunting as reprehensible of course. I am a meat eater too and don't have a problem with that. Meat eating is a choice not a necessity too; only vegans can logically object to hunting as both practices are killing for pleasure. But, having seen the sharp end of both hunting and meat eating I am confident that hunting is far less cruel. At least with hunting the quarry is living a natural, free life and has an excellent chance of escape, whereas animals raised for food consumption do not. Hunters take responsibility for killing their quarry whereas many meat eaters think that just because they didnt kill the animal themselves they should bear no responsibility for its death.

What a load of crap. "The quarry is lliving a natural, free life". It's not natural for terriermen to send dogs underground to fight the foxes. It's not natural to chase foxes and deer across countryside with hounds. It's not natural to create man-made earths for foxes to live in. It's not natural to breed foxes to hunt (deny it if you like, but it's well-documented and I've seen a bred fox released in Essex, just to hunt). How does a fox when hunted by terriers underground, with all holes blocked have an "excellent chance of escape". Or a pregnant hind chased for miles and miles by horses and hounds stand a chance. It's killing for pleasure. How vile.

mmm, bambi burgers

There is never any justification for killing anything for pleasure. Eating, conservation, yes. But not for fun.
Not ever.

And boden is right. X amount of arses on horseback chasing one wee animal with a pack of dogs is disgusting.
That's really natural, that is...

Boden of course it's natural to chase quarry with hounds, it's probably the most natural thing mankind does and we have been doing it for thousands of years! Dogs hunting instincts run extremely deep-it's what dogs are FOR mostly- and before dogs it was wolves that hunted live quarry.This 'breeding foxes to hunt' is absurd too because what is the point; foxes are a vermin that breed very nicely on their own, they certainly don't need any help!! Manmade earths died out many, many, years ago; yes there are old ones still around but there have been no new ones made for decades as far as I am aware - as again there are too many foxes around anyway! Digging out only occured during traditional hunting when the farmer wanted a pest that had been run onto his land despatched, otherwise the pack would be moved on to find a new quarry. It is also ridiculous to say that hunting is killing for pleasure but meat eating isn't. Neither is essential in this day and age' they are BOTH killing for pleasure, but foxhunters only get pleasure from the thrilling ride not the kill, whereas meat eaters get pleasure directly from the dead animal plus they usually take no responsibility for the kill. Oh and its not the 'x many riders chasing the fox' it is just the huntsman, whipper in and the hounds. The 'field' (followers) are not normally participating in the hunt, they are just there to try to cross challenging country and keep up with the hounds.

Breeding of foxes and manmade earths for the sake of hunting absolutely do exist in this day and age! I had the misfortune to experience both of these on a regular in my role in tackling wildlife crime in Essex. Terrierwork (sending dogs underground to fight foxes) is also part and parcel of routine hunting throughout Britains, and not an exceptional practice. I wish it was.

Well I have hunted for 28 years and never come across it! Why would someone breed foxes when the country is riddled with them!? If you are against terrier work then presumably you would like the Hunting Act repealed??

No, I wouldn't like the Hunting Act repealed. I would like tighter laws against terrierwork though, of course.

Fair enough, don't have a problem with it myself though. It's certainly very natural as my terrier loves going down holes to kill stuff on her own, she doesn't need me around or any encouragement.

seeker Tue 19-Jun-12 20:37:02
"In my books, killing something for fun is absolutely morally unacceptable. Always. No exceptions.

Killing something for economic reasons may or may not be absolutely morally unacceptable."

Where do you draw the line between fun and economic reasons? Surely most deer/elks etc that are shot are then eaten? (Foxes are obviously the odd one out, here, as they have no economic value- apart from the need to cull them.)

Surely most hunters, in all societies, do take a pleasure in the hunt?

My cousin has a farm; they have deer shooting parties- and fill the freezer. It is part of the rural economy.

When I was a child, we fished for the table- and it did actually make a big financial difference. But of course as far as we were concerned it was also fun. So should we have been banned because we were doing it for fun? Or just made to wear very glum expression?

And incidentally, where I grew up, hunting (elk and deer) was mainly a working class thing. It still is in many parts of the world.

Cory- if you are killing for your own table, or to sell what you kill, then that to me is acceptable. Killing when eating/selling the prey is a sideline- as with pheasants and grouse- is to me unacceptable. If the primary drive is sport then it is unacceptable.

Seeker - why is it worse to kill for the pleasure of the chase than it is for the pleasure of meat eating? Neither are essential, vegans get by fine. The two are morally inseparable.

I guess anything the Duke of Cambridge shoots isn't critically endangered.

All killing of any animals for sport, entertainment or food is WRONG WRONG WRONG.

In fact meat eating is worse as the animal has to die for the meat eater to get their pleasure. As a fox hunter, I can have a wonderful days sport and the fox gets away unharmed.