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?

@DioneTheDiabolist

Hunting provides a living environment for flora and fauna.

As a New Forest native I can assure you that hunting destroys crops, farm borders and is entirely useless as a culling method. Farmers loathe the hunt.

Have you ever seen an exhausted fox dragged out by its tail from wherever it’s gone to ground to hide? Thrown to a pack of dogs that have been left hungry to ensure their bloodlust is on top form.

They rip the animal to shreds and it’s not necessarily a quick demise for the poor animal.

It’s not a ‘sport’. It’s a way of arrogant weekenders to fulfil their bloodlust. Very few true ‘country folk’ support hunting. Long live the ban.

I'm not saying that hunting is problem free. I am asking: Is hunting more ethical than golf?

I'm not saying that hunting is problem free. I am asking: Is hunting more ethical than golf? Neither is more than the other - ban both?
I never thought about the effects of golf on wildlife before, everyday is a school day on MN.

@DioneTheDiabolist

I'm not saying that hunting is problem free. I am asking: Is hunting more ethical than golf?

Not if you respect the countryside. No.

Golf courses are dedicated plots of land bought and paid for to provide a specific service. Much the same as any other sport venue. Do you have objections to them? Football pitches,, cricket pitches etc?

The other 900 acres of Heathland, woodland and grazing (the commoners have grazing rights for their animals, some of which have been caught up and slaughtered in the hunt) has managed perfectly well to remain as it was before the fox hunting ban was introduced.

It’s also worth noting that whilst I think golf is an entirely pointless game, many many golf courses promote conservation on their courses.

Golf England actively supports this. As found here www.englandgolf.org/club-support/business-support/greener-golf/conserving-nature/ with a little research.

No, I don't have a problem with Football pitches,, cricket pitches etc?

They take up a tiny space proportional to the vast acres needed for golf.

@DioneTheDiabolist

I'm not saying that hunting is problem free. I am asking: Is hunting more ethical than golf?

I don't think you can pose such a narrow question and expect a realistic reply.

Well so far 81 percent of respondents are either vegetarian golfers or hypocrites. An animal shot in the wild is the most ethical meat going.

Also Trump likes golf, and twenty cricket pitches will fit onto the average golf course.

@TomPinch

Well so far 81 percent of respondents are either vegetarian golfers or hypocrites. An animal shot in the wild is the most ethical meat going.

Also Trump likes golf, and twenty cricket pitches will fit onto the average golf course.

I am very keen on game, but I think it's ridiculous to generalise like that. No, animals shot in the wild aren't invariably 'ethical'. I really don't believe that, say, pheasants reared quite intensively then let loose, then shot by idiots, are having a better time of it than lambs farmed all their lives then killed in an abattoir.

I don't think you can pose such a narrow question and expect a realistic reply.

Posing a narrow question is sometimes better than posing a broad one. I agree that this is specific, but which do you think is a more ethical use of land/time/labour/resources?

Golf or hunting?

@DioneTheDiabolist

I don't think you can pose such a narrow question and expect a realistic reply.

Posing a narrow question is sometimes better than posing a broad one. I agree that this is specific, but which do you think is a more ethical use of land/time/labour/resources?

Golf or hunting?

I think you need to take into account wider issues about land/time/labour/resources.

I am totally counting for wider issues about land/time/labour/resources. Golf is losing.

YABVU

@SarahAndQuack

You have an odd idea of what "wild" and "hunting" means. But actually I do reckon it's a better life as a free range pheasant than a sheep or, worse, an intensively farmed cow.

This is ridiculous. Golf courses are vast green spaces, often in urban areas. How can you try to claim that they're bad for the environment. Worse than a big swimming pool or tennis court?! If you'd ever been on a golf course or even watched golf on TV you'd see all the wildlife that usually lives in green spaces with areas of trees and woodland roam about quite freely. They're particularly friendly homes for bird life. There are incentives for golf courses for being pro actively even more environmentally friendly - our local one got a grant to plant more trees. Rare species of trees can be protected on golf courses and dickheads who skulk around woodland to shoot birds of prey are kept out.

But maybe golf course should all be built on to make thousands of identical semi detached houses with paved over back yards and tarmac drives. That'll be good for the environment.

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

Yeah right - if you say so.

Let's see some real unbiaised evidence of that.

Do you expect this question to have an ascertains le answer OP? It won’t, because it depends on how you prioritise various wrongdoings, and people will do that differently depending on their personal feelings. For some, the deliberate killing of an animal will always be wrong, therefore hunting is worse. For others, land wastage may be a bigger issue. Neither is wrong - it’s just a matter of opinion.

Unless you reduce your question down to a really granular level to enable it to be factually determined (e.g. what causes most animal deaths, hunting or golf?) all you’ll get is a range of opinions showing other posters’ personal priorities, with no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ about it.

Golf courses are more biodiverse than agricultural land and managed parks, particularly for bird, insect and tree species, and provide habitats and green spaces in more urban areas.

The RSPB obviously thinks golf courses are worth partnering with to promote biodiversity.

If you've ever walked around a golf course in the evening you'd know there is lots of wildlife to see. Granted you won't see lots of molehills but gardeners don't like moles either. You'll see lots of rabbits come out to play as it gets closer to dusk, different birds, there are becks & other water for voles and other wildlife, bats, the odd fox.

Very clever question OP. Based on the arguments you have written, I think, on balance, I’d have to agree with you. In comparing these 2, hunting does appear to be more morally sound.

We see lots of wildlife on our local golf course - birds, rabbits, frogs, toads, bats, muntjacs. One of the few benefits of lockdown was discovering that if we went for an evening walk there, we could almost guarantee seeing bats.

You could also question the ethics of releasing nearly 60 million non-native game birds into the UK every year, when only about a third of these are shot and retrieved.