to think that if you are Royal and want to campaign against wildlife being killed, you shouldn't shoot them?

[HollyMiamiFLA]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26106137

Granted he's talking about the danger to endangered wildlife in Africa from poachers and he's only shooting boar on a private estate and they're not endangered so that's ok - but it doesn't come across too well.

I am no fan of the royals, but they are campaigning to save an endangered species. Which is good.

Deer and pheasant are not endangered species.

Do you eat meat or wear leather op? then you are inadvertently responsible for the death of an animal. The fact you don't pull the trigger that blasts them to kingdom come is neither here nor there.

muffin said it perfectly earlier: "Shooting an non endangered animal for pest control or food is completely different to poaching an endangered species."

It is only a PR own goal because some people are too stupid to see the difference between the two. Humans are hunters and carnivores. Hunting meat animals such as boar and deer is normal. And personally, I would rather eat some boar that has been killed after spending some time running free around a large estate than some intensively farmed supermarket chicken. Hunting endangered species is incredibly short-sighted for the future of our planet.

YABU. Of course there will be some who cry "hypocrisy", but this is an opportunity to explain the difference between poaching endangered species and shooting game.

What Eurochick said. Have you kidnapped my Ipad?

ComposHat Sun 09-Feb-14 13:10:22

"Do you eat meat or wear leather op? then you are inadvertently responsible for the death of an animal. The fact you don't pull the trigger that blasts them to kingdom come is neither here nor there."

If you use marge (or any other product made with palm oil) you are responsible for even more deaths. D:o if you eat soy bean products derived from South America.

I happily eat meat. The point is timing. He can talk about not shooting endangered animals but people then see him shooting animals. They don't think about the difference. It's cute animals like deer being shot.

These debates always fascinate me. If all the tigers and rhinos were wiped out, how would that affect us? It wouldn't. In fact, if all the tigers were gone in India, then little village children in India wouldn't get eaten by them. Over the centuries, many species have died out. And our lives continue to be unaffected.

The other view of course LaGuardia, is that we are custodians of the world,vwhich means we should do our best to look after the animals who also have the privilege of living here. You may be happy in a world where the biodiversity has been decimated - many people would not, and think we have no right to wipe it out with no thought.

Isn't leather a byproduct anyway?

I'd prefer it is the royals hunted each other into extinction.

Quite possibly cory but I am not the one trying to claim the moral high ground.

It's stupid from a PR perspective and also I'm sure years ago people thought it was fine to shoot what are now endangered species because at the time they weren't, that's how they became endangered!

I dislike the concept of breeding animals just to shoot them for 'fun', cant think of many things less 'fun' than killing something that can't defend itself just for shit and giggles

" If all the tigers and rhinos were wiped out, how would that affect us?"

As well as it not being a right to destroy the Eco System.

Those that hunt those animals and/or use them in "medicine" would look to other species, this would eventually affect us, or rather the planet.

This will/does make a negitive difference to people's lives and the income level of the affected region.

When the Tigers and Rhinos have gone, so will those paying to hunt there. So if the region relies on this it is a very short sighted plan.

If those living in that region want help to stop these practices, they should be supported.

We have to manage the planet for it to stay safely habitable.

Especially now that Globalisation and certain types of tourism has happened.

No moral high ground being claimed here compashat

Just amusing from a PR perspective that William's message can get lost because of his actions - however well intentioned and innocent.

I am glad he is raising awareness of poaching and endangered animals. But I will be glad when the Royal Family become endangered and no one wants to protect them.

Shocking hypocrits, the pair of them.

ComposHat Sun 09-Feb-14 15:42:22
"Quite possibly cory but I am not the one trying to claim the moral high ground."

Sorry, that was clumsily done: I didn't mean to criticise you, but to add to your post.

why hypocrites, cats? What is hypocritical about saying:

it is ok to kill animals that are not endangered

but it is not ok to kill animals that are threatened by extinction

Personally I would say that somebody who eats a boar shot under the circumstances described occupies the moral high ground in comparison to somebody who a) eats intensively reared animals b) eats vegetarian products which have been obtained through the clearing of rainforest or other wholesale destruction of habitats.

Let's just get these endangered species up I numbers then we can go about shooting them for fun/sport/food again. Sorted

Personally I would say that somebody who eats a boar shot under the circumstances described occupies the moral high ground in comparison to somebody who a) eats intensively reared animals b) eats vegetarian products which have been obtained through the clearing of rainforest or other wholesale destruction of habitats.

Rain forest clearing etc also happens to grow feed for the intensively farmed animals we eat.

I think it is the spectacle of Prince William and his pals shooting animals and birds for sport that is distasteful. They are certainly not killing these wild boar and stags as an altruistic gesture of culling to benefit the species! The birds are reared specifically to be shot as "sport" and are often killed in vast numbers, often competititively. It is the same distaste that is aroused by fox hunting, although this is frequently presented as a necessary cull too.

However you try to justify it, killing animals and birds for fun is a bloodthirsty hobby, and one that alienates most of the public. It has also always been seen as an elite pursuit for the privileged classes who own large, private estates which have been passed on through the generations. The disconnect here is the sight of the youngest generation of royals, on the one hand professing to espouse modern values while brazenly pursuing the abe-old privileges of reactionary monarchy.

Sorry, "age-old".