Big Game Hunter
In the Olden Days people used to go to Africa and shoot the bigger animals - lions and suchlike - as trophies.
Then most of the people sensibly grew out of it and decided, correctly in my opinion, that it was better to watch the animals whilst they were alive.
But, in recent times, as Louis Theroux told us in a television programme last night, some people have started breeding the bigger animals for the express purpose of selling them to be shot.
So you can book a kind of Death Safari - travel to Africa, see fascinating new animals, and shoot them.
And it isn't too difficult. You can sit in a hide by a specially- made water hole, and when the animal comes to the water-hole to drink, you pick up a huge great rifle and shoot it. Then you have your photo taken next to the dead animal and feel good about yourself: and then you pay the landowner who has bred the animals, according to their size - down from a couple of grand for a rhino to, say, twenty pence for a small frog. Okay, I lied about the frog, but you understand the principle.
Pete Warren, who was one of those breeding the animals, was mightily offended by Louis Theroux's probing questions about the ethics of it all.
"It doesn't hurt me. I grew up in another culture," he said. A three-year-old rhino, bred to be shot, was particularly valuable because of the length of its horn: 22" and he was paid per inch.
In the various places that Louis Theroux visited, all the landowners seemed to be quite insistent about not letting a wounded animal suffer, and tracking it down to finish it off. Mind you, that was partly because once you've hit it, you have to pay for it.
So, let's look at it from the animal's point of view. Anything wrong with this? The animal is well looked after, well fed and then leads a reasonably natural life in the wild, until one day off it goes to the water-hole and is very suddenly dead. The meat, according to one of the people doing the shooting, is then given to the poor or something, though I'm not quite sure I believed this: it seemed a bit too philanthropic to me and I thought it was rather more likely that it was fed to the lions.
So, is this worse than what we do to say, cows? Or sheep? Or pigs? Especially intensively-reared pigs, for example?
Actually, I wouldn't say it's worse - it's about the same. And, in the case of intensively-reared pigs - and I went round one of these farms in France, and it was horrific - I'd say far better.
Also, the landowners in the programme made the point, very forcefully, that they were breeding animals which were, in many places, being hunted out of existence by poachers, and hence contributing to the survival of many species.
The Big Hunter Chap tried to get Louis Theroux to shoot something and you could see from his expression that he really wasn't impressed when Louis decided not to.
But it all makes me very uneasy. I'm not vegetarian - far from it. I don't have any problem with animals being killed for food, as long as they are well looked after when they are alive.
So the thing that makes me uneasy has to be the people involved.
Perhaps hunting is a very basic human instinct - I'm prepared to accept that.
But this isn't hunting, is it? It's just some very rich people firing guns at animals which are, in many cases, standing right in front of them.
So I know that my reservations about it have nothing much to do with the animals. They're to do with the people.
All the so-called hunters kept going on about how wonderful and proud they felt when they'd shot the animal. And that's the feeling that I don't understand.
If you needed to feed yourself and your family, and you used great skill to track the animal, and then you crept up on it and killed it humanely and this meant that you and your family could eat - well, then, to me, you would be justified in feeling proud.
But paying someone two grand so you could shoot an animal that's standing in front of you? All that shows is that you've more money than sense.
Then most of the people sensibly grew out of it and decided, correctly in my opinion, that it was better to watch the animals whilst they were alive.
But, in recent times, as Louis Theroux told us in a television programme last night, some people have started breeding the bigger animals for the express purpose of selling them to be shot.
So you can book a kind of Death Safari - travel to Africa, see fascinating new animals, and shoot them.
And it isn't too difficult. You can sit in a hide by a specially- made water hole, and when the animal comes to the water-hole to drink, you pick up a huge great rifle and shoot it. Then you have your photo taken next to the dead animal and feel good about yourself: and then you pay the landowner who has bred the animals, according to their size - down from a couple of grand for a rhino to, say, twenty pence for a small frog. Okay, I lied about the frog, but you understand the principle.
Pete Warren, who was one of those breeding the animals, was mightily offended by Louis Theroux's probing questions about the ethics of it all.
"It doesn't hurt me. I grew up in another culture," he said. A three-year-old rhino, bred to be shot, was particularly valuable because of the length of its horn: 22" and he was paid per inch.
In the various places that Louis Theroux visited, all the landowners seemed to be quite insistent about not letting a wounded animal suffer, and tracking it down to finish it off. Mind you, that was partly because once you've hit it, you have to pay for it.
So, let's look at it from the animal's point of view. Anything wrong with this? The animal is well looked after, well fed and then leads a reasonably natural life in the wild, until one day off it goes to the water-hole and is very suddenly dead. The meat, according to one of the people doing the shooting, is then given to the poor or something, though I'm not quite sure I believed this: it seemed a bit too philanthropic to me and I thought it was rather more likely that it was fed to the lions.
So, is this worse than what we do to say, cows? Or sheep? Or pigs? Especially intensively-reared pigs, for example?
Actually, I wouldn't say it's worse - it's about the same. And, in the case of intensively-reared pigs - and I went round one of these farms in France, and it was horrific - I'd say far better.
Also, the landowners in the programme made the point, very forcefully, that they were breeding animals which were, in many places, being hunted out of existence by poachers, and hence contributing to the survival of many species.
The Big Hunter Chap tried to get Louis Theroux to shoot something and you could see from his expression that he really wasn't impressed when Louis decided not to.
But it all makes me very uneasy. I'm not vegetarian - far from it. I don't have any problem with animals being killed for food, as long as they are well looked after when they are alive.
So the thing that makes me uneasy has to be the people involved.
Perhaps hunting is a very basic human instinct - I'm prepared to accept that.
But this isn't hunting, is it? It's just some very rich people firing guns at animals which are, in many cases, standing right in front of them.
So I know that my reservations about it have nothing much to do with the animals. They're to do with the people.
All the so-called hunters kept going on about how wonderful and proud they felt when they'd shot the animal. And that's the feeling that I don't understand.
If you needed to feed yourself and your family, and you used great skill to track the animal, and then you crept up on it and killed it humanely and this meant that you and your family could eat - well, then, to me, you would be justified in feeling proud.
But paying someone two grand so you could shoot an animal that's standing in front of you? All that shows is that you've more money than sense.
posted by Daphne at 6:22 pm
3 Comments:
The killing of any animal should not be taken lightly. Having built up a relationship with my animals, I admit I sometimes feel uneasy that they will be going for meat. But I like to think they are treated with respect and the food they produce will be treated with similar respect.
The difference, I suppose, between farming and this big game hunting is that in farming there is no pleasure in the killing.
Only sad bastards have to prove how macho they are by killing an animal for the sake of it. There is little difference between these people and the yobs who get a kick from torturing cats and dogs on our sink estates.
Yes, when you consider the differences between this and factory farming it's hard to say just why this is so wrong, isn't it? But as you say, it comes down to the people.
Malc's right, what kind of sad bastard needs to do this? To feed his ego at the expense of the life of another creature?
Killing for food is killing to live, unless you're vegetarian. I have no problem with killing for food provided that the life and death of the animal concerned are as good as can be managed. I have no problem with using the by-products of said death - leather, animal based glues, whatever.
I have few problems with killing for safety - eg mice, rats, poisonous spiders etc., again provided that it's done humanely. But I do have a great problem with killing for unnecessary commodities such as fur, and an even greater problem with killing for fun.
Sad bastards indeed.
Really got my brain cells scurrying about this morning Daph!
I have NO problem at all with hunting for food. I grew up with that all my life and there's really nothing as tasty as the properly prepared backstrap from a deer.
I agree wholeheartedly with malc, the pleasure these guys get just isn't right. I mean what game is there in hiding and shooting an animal when it comes down to drink? Maybe if they were hiding up in a tree, with a knife gripped in their teeth, waiting for a true wild animal, yes, now that would be game hunting! The lion, tiger, or bear (oh my), would have an equal chance at getting a trophy!
Post a Comment
<< Home