clipo 871 Posted March 11, 2014 Report Share Posted March 11, 2014 https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=XOweU4J6ho7sBq-egMAN&url=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3Dh_bZzxep87c&cd=2&ved=0CD8QtwIwAQ&usg=AFQjCNFjf-YDQDHBhgRn8MNbRonYWK2dLA&sig2=w5dQlsNJsKJ-YJd2doSLPw Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bird 10,014 Posted March 11, 2014 Report Share Posted March 11, 2014 So in conclusion.......... The rspca have got it right. Most folk think it should be labeled halal so we can chose. I think as hunters we can't start pointing the finger at how animals are dispatched as long as there is no cruelty involved. I know anytime I've visited slaughter houses I've felt more for the animals who are waiting there death than the ones getting killed at the time. If we can smell death you can sure as f**k know they can.that's it baw, your right , there no point what so ever making a comparison to hunting , because there is a option to stun a animal before death, you don't always have that option when hunting, so why make the comparison.? its cruel mate ive seen it day in day out ,when I worked in a slaughter house why people think its not , the animals are shit scared so why feckin prolong it . when you have the choice . Traditions mate. We all love to keep our Christian traditions, why can't they? It's ok saying, well let them have there own slaughter houses then. Slaughter houses are private business trying to make a living. No way are they going to turn down good money just cause someone finds it crueler than another method. Wasn't that long ago there was a thread on here regarding a butcher getting threats because he had whole animals in the window. You guys were giving it, f*****g where do they think meat comes from blah blah. Now we are up in arms cos an animal gets its throat cut but not stunned. It's just the way it is I'm afraid. this is the old point mate, they been killing animals the Hala way for 1000's years, and stuck out in the middle of know where they had no choice .But in this day age humans should have moved on, not act like them primitive feckers do with all the mod cons of today in this day age. And more so if animals are killed on a big scale like slaughter house .As said I worked there and its cruel to let any animal die slowly when you can kill it humane by stunning it , and if people carnt see that well , well its a sad world we live in, and I not saying any more it waste of typing Quote Link to post Share on other sites
baw 4,360 Posted March 11, 2014 Report Share Posted March 11, 2014 We can see its cruel bird, what part of animals bred for the food chain isn't? You can't just point the finger at one practice because you don't like the people it's for. The whole industry is f***ing cruel and if you think a stun gun makes it all ok, then that's your opinion mate. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
paulus 26 Posted March 11, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2014 We can see its cruel bird, what part of animals bred for the food chain isn't? You can't just point the finger at one practice because you don't like the people it's for. The whole industry is f*****g cruel and if you think a stun gun makes it all ok, then that's your opinion mate. the point is, stunning is our accepted industry standard a standard that is agreed to be better than non stunning, so why then allow both as all it does is cause a rift in societies. all animals are on this earth as part of a food chain excluding apex predators, we are the only apex predator who consciously chooses how our quarry is killed, if we lived in a place with no guns/slaughter houses etc. and our only tool was a knife and spear then yes that would be a totally acceptable method of killing, but where we have the ability to make the slaughter as humane as possible then why choose to make it less humane but ignoring what is accepted to be the most humane method available, it this was just about pure business and the bottom line on the balance sheet then halal would win hands down being the cheapest method by a country mile but the fact our industry chooses to stun can only be on animal welfare grounds Quote Link to post Share on other sites
walshie 2,804 Posted March 11, 2014 Report Share Posted March 11, 2014 Someone has mentioned shooting an animal and it not dying immediately. Unfortunately this does happen on occasion, but it is not on purpose. I doubt anyone shoots to wound. If you only had your bare hands, you could eventually strangle it to death. If you had a rock, you could beat it to death. If you had a knife, you could cut it's throat. But if you have a knife and a stun gun, IMO it's our duty to kill in the most humane method available with the given tools. We aren't barbarians.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
baw 4,360 Posted March 11, 2014 Report Share Posted March 11, 2014 All I can say is, you've got a f***ing easy life if that annoys you in my things that piss me off scale, it's a gnats fart 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
paulus 26 Posted March 11, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2014 All I can say is, you've got a f*****g easy life if that annoys you in my things that piss me off scale, it's a gnats fart warning this member is reversing,warning this member is reversing Quote Link to post Share on other sites
STRANGER 948 Posted March 11, 2014 Report Share Posted March 11, 2014 Agree with Walshies post above. If the technology is there to be 'more' humane then it should always be used. People working terriers/lurchers can get charged with 'causing unnecessary suffering' so my question is what's the difference? Surely slitting a cows throat is causing un necessary suffering if you have a stun gun beside you and choose not to use it? I'm sure 99.9% of people hunting in the field end an animals life in the most humane way possible, and Halal is NOT the most humane way possible, end of IMO. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
baw 4,360 Posted March 11, 2014 Report Share Posted March 11, 2014 All I can say is, you've got a f*****g easy life if that annoys you in my things that piss me off scale, it's a gnats fart warning this member is reversing,warning this member is reversing I'm glad you knew it was for you, I noticed walshie had posted inbetween posts, I was worried incase he thought it was for him, had something else to do and locked the thread till he got back 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
STRANGER 948 Posted March 11, 2014 Report Share Posted March 11, 2014 Plus I hate pakis so would disagree with it anyway 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
baw 4,360 Posted March 11, 2014 Report Share Posted March 11, 2014 Wasn't the stun gun introduced to save bullets is the billet the least cruelest but we put up with the stun gun Quote Link to post Share on other sites
STRANGER 948 Posted March 11, 2014 Report Share Posted March 11, 2014 Would have thought it was introduced as far less dangerous in a confined space. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
walshie 2,804 Posted March 11, 2014 Report Share Posted March 11, 2014 Is Baw confusing whatever they use to stun animals with a captive bolt they use to kill cattle? As said, a captive bolt is for safety's sake. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
STRANGER 948 Posted March 11, 2014 Report Share Posted March 11, 2014 Baw's just confused in general I think 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,910 Posted March 11, 2014 Report Share Posted March 11, 2014 Is Baw confusing whatever they use to stun animals with a captive bolt they use to kill cattle? As said, a captive bolt is for safety's sake. Isn't the captive bolt still used to 'stun'? That desensitises the animal then pithing or bleeding is used to actually kill it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.