AIBU To Think That Hunting Is More Ethical Than Golf?

[DioneTheDiabolist]

I am having this discussion atm and I totally think I'm right. My reasons are:
Golf courses are a waste of land.
And water.
And chemicals.
And manpower.
Golf contributes nothing to anyone except golfers, their sponsors and bookies.

Whereas hunting needs people to look after the land, promoting conservation and natural biodiversity.

AIBU?

I don't think you mean more ethical. I think you mean less damaging.

In this country? Which species of animal do you mean?

Moles, rats, foxes, badgers, worms, insects, squirrels, many birds and lots and lots of flora that would "ruin" a golf green.

@DdraigGoch

Well I've never eaten a golf ball but I can imagine that it doesn't come close to the offering from the game merchant in Chester Market. So if I want to keep eating delicious things then someone is going to have to shoot it.

Well, technically not (though I am largely with you).

There is no particularly good reason that some game needs to be shot. Pheasants, for example, are so thick it's perfectly easy to tempt them in with food and then kill them humanely; they are much less bright than your average chicken.

IMO it's also about minimising suffering. I do feel strongly about idiots who think a shoot is a great bonding exercise for Tarquin and Freddie from the London office to organise. So you end up with a quorum of stupid young men who don't know one end of a gun from the other, who put birds through agonises of suffering. And if the gun dogs don't find them all they end up on my lawn two days later with a shattered wing, in agony. It's quite hard to shoot a pheasant dead neatly, if you don't know how. OTOH I would think if you must cull deer, a neat shot through the eye is a much more humane way to go than what happens to most beef cattle.

Yeah, I'd agree with that OP.

Golf courses are a pretty sterile, chemical laden monoculture with very little life. Basically a dead zone environmentally speaking. And yes they do kill animals which are then often disposed of (or if poisoned may contaminate other animas though I don't think that happens so much no.)

On the other hand, hunting depends on habitats, and even when those habitats are artificially maintained there are lots of things living in them, insects, birds, mammals, amphibians. And there are plenty of hunting areas that are kept entirely natural especially outside the UK.

Lots of hunting organisations are heavily involved in conservation and it's quite common for conservation professionals to be hunters too.

As for the fact that hunters kill animals - every wild animal dies, most of them die pretty young. They die of a few things - they are killed and eaten (probably the best option,) they die of disease or parasites (not so nice), or starvation and exposure (also not so nice). Hunting that isn't beyond what the population can sustain doesn't change that.

Any repurposing of country land isn't ideal, but id prefer a golf course to housing etc of it can't remain green belt.

Housing is useful, some might say necessary. Definitely more necessary than putting a wee ball into a wee hole. With a stick.

@vimtosogood

I can't see golf putting food on the table if I'm honest, but it's not the biggest waste of land I can think of. That would be cities.

At the moment it seems that way but normally they serve functions for living people. Cemeteries, otoh, seem wasteful - there was a piece on the radio about councils having to extend them, so having to chuck people off allotments. ....so... for better use of land perhaps much the land between the tees and the bit with the hole in could be used for growing veg or for burying people?

@SmokedDuck

Yeah, I'd agree with that OP.

Golf courses are a pretty sterile, chemical laden monoculture with very little life. Basically a dead zone environmentally speaking. And yes they do kill animals which are then often disposed of (or if poisoned may contaminate other animas though I don't think that happens so much no.)

On the other hand, hunting depends on habitats, and even when those habitats are artificially maintained there are lots of things living in them, insects, birds, mammals, amphibians. And there are plenty of hunting areas that are kept entirely natural especially outside the UK.

Lots of hunting organisations are heavily involved in conservation and it's quite common for conservation professionals to be hunters too.

As for the fact that hunters kill animals - every wild animal dies, most of them die pretty young. They die of a few things - they are killed and eaten (probably the best option,) they die of disease or parasites (not so nice), or starvation and exposure (also not so nice). Hunting that isn't beyond what the population can sustain doesn't change that.

I think this is a rather romanticised vision of hunting.

Definitely more necessary than putting a wee ball into a wee hole. With a stick.

If you like putting wee balls into wee holes with sticks interspersed with walking, you could plan a ramble between pubs with pool tables.

@DioneTheDiabolist

Any repurposing of country land isn't ideal, but id prefer a golf course to housing etc of it can't remain green belt.

Housing is useful, some might say necessary. Definitely more necessary than putting a wee ball into a wee hole. With a stick.

Well, what are you arguing then? That golf courses decrease biodiversity, so it should be further decreased by building more housing?

Housing is useful, some might say necessary. Definitely more necessary than putting a wee ball into a wee hole. With a stick.

You can say the same thing about hunting. It's not necessary to go hunting for food. It's not necessary to shoot raptors to protect birds that are only reared to be shot.

Hunting provides a living environment for flora and fauna.

Housing is useful, but until developers have to add schools and doctors surgeries and other services, I'd go for the golf club every time. A golf club provides some employment for the area, and many do fundraising for the local area, maybe act as as a wedding or dinner dance venue etc. They don't stick as many houses as they can on a plot and leave the local infrastructure struggling and shrug because they've made their money.

If you like putting wee balls into wee holes with sticks interspersed with walking, you could plan a ramble between pubs with pool tables.

Exactly @ErrolTheDragon.

@DioneTheDiabolist

If you like putting wee balls into wee holes with sticks interspersed with walking, you could plan a ramble between pubs with pool tables.

Exactly @ErrolTheDragon.

But the pubs are a waste of land.

I could easily argue that pubs are worse than golf courses.

@KrisAkabusi

Housing is useful, some might say necessary. Definitely more necessary than putting a wee ball into a wee hole. With a stick.

You can say the same thing about hunting. It's not necessary to go hunting for food. It's not necessary to shoot raptors to protect birds that are only reared to be shot.

Gamekeepers don't generally kill raptors. You get the odd rogue like in any occupation but the overwhelming majority of keepers are law-abiding people.

I could easily argue that pubs are worse than golf courses.

And you'd be wasting your time @Sbk28. In no universe is a pub worse than a golf course. For a start it takes up less space.

Much less space. And I'm sure 7 good pubs, with pool tables, could bring as much pleasure to people as 1 golf course.

Gamekeepers don't generally kill raptors. You get the odd rogue like in any occupation but the overwhelming majority of keepers are law-abiding people.

Oh, come on, that's naive. I agree gamekeepers may not shoot hen harriers on a daily basis (there aren't enough hen harriers). But they do create the conditions where very few predator species thrive, and people who run estates where, make huge changes to ecosystems in order to ensure it's as good as possible for hunting/shooting. It is silly to say raptors aren't killed, when we all know (and have known for decades) that the issue is also about habitat.

@DioneTheDiabolist

I could easily argue that pubs are worse than golf courses.

And you'd be wasting your time @Sbk28. In no universe is a pub worse than a golf course. For a start it takes up less space.

Much less space. And I'm sure 7 good pubs, with pool tables, could bring as much pleasure to people as 1 golf course.

No, one pub isn't worse than one golf course. But there are more pubs than golf courses. They use land, contribute to antisocial behaviour, use loads of water in the brewing process and manufacture of food that goes well over calorific requirements...

It's hilarious that you're worried about me wasting my time given how much you've invested into your argument that a sport involving killing animals for fun is not that bad really.

I think this is a rather romanticised vision of hunting.

Which bit? I'd say it's pretty straightforward - even the most managed of hunts happen on land that is far more biodiverse than a golf course. And that's only certain types of hunting anyway.

What I find is often very romanticised is how people imagine the lives of wild animals. As if many are living nice quiet lives to near the end of their lifespan and then die quietly in their sleep. That is so far from the reality - if people just thought clearly about how wild animals die it would create some necessary perspective.

Sorry if you got the wrong end of the stick @Sbk28. I just mean at this time more people are wishing their pub would open rather than the closest golf club.

Hunting moors may be more bio diverse than golf courses, but they aren't nearly as bio diverse as they would be if hunting hadn't happened. They were called the 'Highland Clearances', not the 'Highland Let's populate this barren land with something slightly better than a monoculture in order to benefit the rich'. People used to live there and feed themselves from the lands. Forests used to flourish. People were burned out of their homes and starved to death. You'd do well to check your history - recent, not ancient - before starting a sixth form debate on this topic.

@SmokedDuck

I think this is a rather romanticised vision of hunting.

Which bit? I'd say it's pretty straightforward - even the most managed of hunts happen on land that is far more biodiverse than a golf course. And that's only certain types of hunting anyway.

What I find is often very romanticised is how people imagine the lives of wild animals. As if many are living nice quiet lives to near the end of their lifespan and then die quietly in their sleep. That is so far from the reality - if people just thought clearly about how wild animals die it would create some necessary perspective.

The bits where you say that hunting areas are kept 'entirely natural'. That's a contradiction in terms.

Also the bit where you say hunters and involved in conservation. Well, sure, but does that actually lead to good conservation? Sometimes it does and I know this quite well - but it can also be a cynical bit of tokenism, IME. It's very rare hunters have to think about conservation. The economics of it dictate against that, at least in the UK. A lot of people who enjoy hunting/shooting are (relatively) wealthy and depend on others to maintain the land; they may want, or claim they want, to maintain the land in an eco-friendly way, but as soon as that is contracted out, it becomes much harder to manage. It is not at all unusual for a landowner to claim they are desperately eco, all the while the people who are actually paid a salary, quietly put out traps and put down poison because they're not paid to be eco. They're paid to make a good habitat for a nice shoot.

The basic problem is that being genuinely eco-friendly can be expensive.

I take your point that some people romanticise the 'natural' deaths of wild animals. But IMO, there is a huge difference between recognising that a wild animal will often die in pain, and contributing to that pain for the sake of sport. I have no issue with anyone shooting wild animals; I am well aware that there are far more painful and frightening ways to die, and often, wild animals do die in painful and frightening and lingering ways. But, IMO, that does not excuse humans who have no need to cause suffering, doing so for pleasure. If you cannot shoot, and you have no idea what you are doing with a gun, practising on live birds is just plain wrong. Yes, a fox might break a pheasant's wing, or a big hawk might puncture its back and leave it to die a slow death from infection, and that's awful. But the fox doesn't know and the hawk doesn't know. We do. So we should only allow people who have a decent chance of killing an animal cleanly, to do it.

Hunting directly leads to death though, all your points raised against golf are a much lesser evil

Lots of hunting organisations are heavily involved in conservation and it's quite common for conservation professionals to be hunters too.
I've noticed that too @SmokedDuck.

Hunting directly leads to death though, all your points raised against golf are a much lesser evil

Both directly lead to death. With golf, it leads to more death along with an abdication of responsibility.