NitroX
|
| (.700 member) |
| 26/06/11 11:02 PM |
|
Unethical or cruel?
|
Quote:
The hind was pregnant, and the feotus quite well developed.
Posted one of these photos on facebook, and some of the "hunters" or persons on there think this is unethical and shows hunting in a bad light to the "world".
What do you think?
| lancaster |
| (.470 member) |
| 27/06/11 01:56 AM |
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
Unethical and cruel
| Ben |
| (.400 member) |
| 27/06/11 06:11 AM |
|
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
There's a fair chance that any female animal we shoot is going to be pregnant. Feral animals still need to be managed, and that marvellous hind was respected as a game animal by being fully utilised. So I definitely don't think it to be unethical, and I don't think it fits the true meaning of cruel, either. Although I don't think it unethical or cruel, and personally I find it interesting, I do see how in this modern McWorld, it could be controversial.
| 500Nitro |
| (.450 member) |
| 27/06/11 06:24 AM |
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
I saw these pics the other day somewhere else.
Not unethical or cruel, a fact of life of being a hunter.
As Ben said, it happens if you shoot females of any animal. Be it Fallow, Roo's, Buffalos, Pigs, Foxes etc and they are just the one's I can think of that I have been involved with.
Now in regards to posting the picture in a public forum or on Facebook, not such a good idea IMHO.
| gryphon |
| (.450 member) |
| 27/06/11 07:09 AM |
|
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
The Australian Deer Association award a "three hind badge" to hunters that actively participate and take three sambar hinds over a prescribed period.
This is to help reduce the number of hinds in the wild as stocks are increasing rapidly here more and more and are seen in more than a few places to be making a nuisance of themselves.
Instead of targeting stags as many do this through us hunters is seen by Gov authorities as hunters doing the Aus environment a great deal of good on reducing an introduced species and we all know what sort of shit we have here with introduced species,IE Pigs,Camels,Goats,Buffalo.
If we dont then Sambar will be taken from the game species list and be a declared pest animal and thus with no Game status will be reduced to the same status as a fox or feral pig goat or whatever other shits of things abound in Aus.If we dont target them they will end up being poisoned by aerial baiting programs,now what do we want?
There is no question what so ever on ethics at all re this matter and to take a Sambar Hind stalking is seen as an achievement being as they are such a tremendous quarry species rather than being unethical bullshit.
Sambar hinds are the watchdogs of the species and hold their own in the vigilance stakes.
Think `roo`s a national symbol where we actively take MILLIONS of animals per year,they aint all bucks you know!
On my own roo permit I have absolutely no issues with selecting doe roo`s even though one has to dispatch a joey usually with the end result.
I have my three hind badge,not that I had actually set out for one but more so as a result of shooting a few fat hinds for meat!
| DarylS |
| (.700 member) |
| 27/06/11 08:09 AM |
|
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
I don't think it is unethical or cruel, but do think posting that particular or type of picture on the net shows lack of fore-thought for someone else's possible feelings & how a subsequent outcry of foul could hurt our sport.
We, in the hunting fraternity, know it happens - the chance happens every time we shoot a female - but I feel we should take every opportunity to hide this type of unfortunate occurance from those who would be upset by it.
During moose season, those of us who are ethical, shoot a 'dry' cow moose, rather than one with a calf or two. We know damn well the dry cow is pregnant, was just bred that fall. At one time, when shooting a cow, we were required to 'mail' in the entire uterous with the fetus attached - Because it was shot mid to late October, the fetus would only be a couple weeks old at best. We did this, of course, but didn't mail pictures of the 'operation' to the SPCA or FITA(or whatever it's called. This was pre-internet. Today, I think showing such a picture on the web, is much the same as directing it to one of the anti groups and is outright asking for trouble that would otherwise not happen.
Some would say, tough, get over it - but I think that attitude is a poor one under the circumstances of global antihunting pressure. We know we need to hunt, to maintain game species, they don't and merely would like to think of a baby saved to grow up, yadda yadda yadda & be pulled down to feed dingo or wolf pups.
There are many people who are fence sitters on whether hunting is ethical or should be banned outright. We've been fighting for their support for a long time, using facts on game hunting control to increase #'s as well as helping habitat, etc.
I feel pictures such as the above, do not help us with the fence sitters, rather the opposite & give fuel to those who continually badger the politicians to stop hunting entirely.
We know it happens, but the world wide web is not the place to show ALL of the pictures. my opinion.
edited to correct some text - dates, etc.
| 9.3x57 |
| (.450 member) |
| 27/06/11 12:40 PM |
|
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
Certainly not unethical or cruel.
Rather, stupid is the word.
Stupid for posting it.
But then, when we get revved up for wolf killing, ANY trapped, snared, shot or dug out wolf or wolf pic'd and posted will be seen as stupid as well.
I'm getting rather fed up with those who are distant thinking those who are close to real management are "____________", fill in the blank with whatever disparaging word you care to type.
Our whole economy; hunting, mining, logging, ranching, is being destroyed or has already been destroyed, by people who have nothing to lose and no legitimate interest in the issues, demanding government action to destroy production and active management.
If it needs protecting, protect it. If it needs killing, kill it. And if you have no direct interest in the impact of the management decision, stay the fuck out of the discussion.
| TOP_PREDATOR |
| (.224 member) |
| 27/06/11 04:09 PM |
|
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
Not unethical or cruel,i have shot a whole range of pregnant animals,but would never take photos of a foetus.
I just can't see any need to show people this photo,other than shock factor.
| Empire375 |
| (.300 member) |
| 27/06/11 05:56 PM |
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
Unethical. Unnecessary. Unhelpful.
| gryphon |
| (.450 member) |
| 27/06/11 06:54 PM |
|
|
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
Well Nitro the members (some) arent too happy with your photo`s old boy.
| Empire375 |
| (.300 member) |
| 27/06/11 07:06 PM |
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
I don't get mad because of what has taken place in these images. I get mad because it draws criticism towards hunting by folks who would normally not care. Shooting pregnant animals is just a reality of hunting.
Posting these images is emotive and serves no benefit other than to polarize opinion
| Empire375 |
| (.300 member) |
| 27/06/11 07:09 PM |
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
A valid opinion quaintly phrased
| cadet |
| (.224 member) |
| 27/06/11 10:31 PM |
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
It's not unethical or cruel that a pregnant animal is shot any more than any other animal; but taking photos and then posting them on the 'net?!
RG
|
NitroX
|
| (.700 member) |
| 27/06/11 11:27 PM |
|
|
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
Quote:
Unethical and cruel
Care to expand on that. A flat unsupported assertion is really only just an opinion.
How is it "cruel"?
How is it "unethical"?
Giving consideration to the fact sambar do not have a definite breeding season. A hind may be pregnant any time of the year. A stag may have hard antlers any time of the year.
So it is not the same as a limited viewpoint of say hunting red hinds during an "off season"?
Should sambar hinds never be killed?
What sort of ridiculous management of a wild herd situation would arise out of that?
At what stage of pregnancy is it no longer unethical or no longer "cruel" to take a hind which might have a very high chance of being a "little bit" pregnant.
Now also giving consideration to the farming of stock. Are deer farmed does or hinds never killed when pregnant?
I can easily tell you, of course they are. It would be unethical or cruel to kill hinds or does, when they have young at foot which depend on them. They are culled AFTER the breeding season usually, when close to 100% are at least somewhat pregnant, during winter, when well fed.
What about domestic cattle?
Maybe it might serve to open some eyes a bit to nature.
|
NitroX
|
| (.700 member) |
| 27/06/11 11:35 PM |
|
|
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
"Shock value"? No, maybe educative.
I don't know why seeing a foetus would come as a "shock" to experienced hunters?!
All the naysayers, ever visited a natural history museum with exhibits of wild animals? The ones I have visited had exhibits of foetuses. Was the obtaining of those foetuses, cruel and unethical? Maybe it is educative.
Certainly the answers on here are educative.
As for "harming hunting" .... and all that crap .... maybe we should institute the "no blood" on a dead animal some forums and magazines insist on.
Maybe instead educating people is a better idea, including educating hunters.
I wonder for the guys on safari, whom harvest females say for bait or meat, how many times they might be pregnant. Except the client never sees it as all the dirty work is done by the skinning and butchering staff, while the client enjoys a whiskey or gin and tonic in the safari camp's bar?
We harvest about 4 million kangaroos in Australia per year. The standard practice is if taking a females is to find out if it is carrying a joey. And if so, you kill it. Considered neither unethical nor cruel. The opposite.
In Scandanavia if shooting a moose cow, with a calf at foot, the practice is to shoot the calf first and then only try to shoot the cow. Is the shooting of the calf unethical or cruel? No of course not.
Leave the double standards to the greenies and animal rightists whom live in fairy castles of make believe.
| Huvius |
| (.416 member) |
| 28/06/11 01:43 AM |
|
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
I can't be the only one to notice that, in general, the anti hunters who patently exclaim hunting (and a situation such as this in particular) is both cruel and unethical are the very same whom celebrate a woman's freedom to kill her own unborn child?
It's long been time for everyone to "man up" and see the world as it really is. This happens on occasion. The PETA croud see such nobility in "saving" these poor helpless cute fuzzy sweet loving animals all the while not giving a good damn about the suffering and unjust death of millions of people around the world every year.
|
NitroX
|
| (.700 member) |
| 28/06/11 04:11 AM |
|
|
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
Huvius,
Yes the double standards of the antis.
On the FB NE page one anti has already posted "hunters should be killed and not die quickly ...."
As usual the antis show their compassion and feelings to their fellow humankind.
I think all school kids should have to undertake a "cultural revolution" camp, and go out and kill and butcher their own meat, farm and grow their own vegetables, to get them out of the "concrete jungle" mentality that is becoming so prevalent today.
ie educate them.
| JabaliHunter |
| (.400 member) |
| 29/06/11 03:27 AM |
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
Quote:
There's a fair chance that any female animal we shoot is going to be pregnant.
Agree 100%.
Personally, I don't like to leave the doe cull too late, but it all depends on selecting the right animal when you have the opportunity within the season.
Having said that, it can't be unethical or cruel. At the end of the day, in population management / conservation, what is the difference between shooting a pregnant doe and shooting a doe with fawn or accompanying yearling?
However, you could say the photo is distasteful in the context of posting on a page open to public view and would be better on a members only page. However, hunters should be exposed to this kind of thing - after all it can't be only about hunting bucks...
We might not like it, but some of us have to tread a fine line in this overcrowded PC mindful world. Perhaps less so in the wilds of Idaho or Australia, but I know just how much of a minority I am in where I live!
| ozhunter |
| (.400 member) |
| 29/06/11 04:25 PM |
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
Quote:
I saw these pics the other day somewhere else.
Not unethical or cruel, a fact of life of being a hunter.
Now in regards to posting the picture in a public forum or on Facebook, not such a good idea IMHO.
+1 No need to high light this. "out of sight, out of mind".
| kamilaroi |
| (.400 member) |
| 29/06/11 05:38 PM |
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
I believe that the depiction is best left to a scientific publication on comparative development.
That shown on the other site is merely gratuitous stupidity.
|
NitroX
|
| (.700 member) |
| 29/06/11 05:57 PM |
|
|
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
So now only scientific publications should be allowed to publish photos of a natural history basis?
How limiting and restrictive.
Stupidiity is limiting ourselves and being too frightened to learn, and to display legitimate items of interest to others.
| Empire375 |
| (.300 member) |
| 29/06/11 10:00 PM |
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
Made my wife angry. She is otherwise disinterested. That does not help me at all. I understand all arguments in support but the images offended me also. I can't help that.
I guess on a forum like this it cannot hurt as only hunters would read it.
| ozhunter |
| (.400 member) |
| 29/06/11 10:17 PM |
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
Quote:
Stupidity is limiting ourselves and being too frightened to learn, and to display legitimate items of interest to others.
Unfortunately the word "stupidity" is a good explanation for a vast number of non hunting, tax paying voters.
I personally don't like looking at that photo and in saying that, I can usually handle a bit of rough. Could only imagine the feeling non hunters get about this photo and us hunters that (in their mind) indulge in this field.
| xausa |
| (.400 member) |
| 30/06/11 01:18 AM |
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
Here in Tennessee, our deer hunting season is designed to prevent this kind of an event from occuring. Our white tail deer rut is in the late fall, and fawns are dropped in the spring, so the time between conception and the end of the hunting season in early January would make "harvesting" a doe with a foetus that far developed seem unlikely.
On the other hand, our local bag limit is three deer per day during the entire hunting season, which extends from September to January, with the proviso that only two (in some circumstances three) deer taken may be antlered bucks ("button" bucks are not counted). The emphasis is definitely on population control by reducing the number of does.
I personally try to account for as many does as possible, since they are wreaking havoc with my soybean crop.
| gryphon |
| (.450 member) |
| 30/06/11 08:13 AM |
|
|
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
I thought that there may have been some interest in that the antler buds are truly defined as showing on the head even at this early stage.
I catch a trout and strip the roe out and eat it on the spot..always have..no diff to me.
Jackie Onassis was reported as her favourite dish was one of a cooked unborn lamb,she did note that one had to kill two though...true!
I have shot rabbits in the tens of thousands for the market,how many were pregnant does or "milky does" I couldnt tell you..whats the diff?
Do we shoot cow elephants? Do we run an ultrasound over them before shooting? To test their level of or if preg?
Sambar deer do not have a season on them and are legally huntable every day of the year (stalking)and as they can have calves at foot or in the womb at any time of the year we get to the 'collateral damage' situation at times.
I know of some that will skin more advanced age "slinky`s" for their delicate hide to be made into soft supple gloves,I`m sure most of us would love a pair!
Come on this is a hunters forum is it not and there has to be occasional 'collateral damage' as so succinctly referred by our politicians in warfare!
| mikeh416Rigby |
| (.450 member) |
| 30/06/11 08:20 AM |
|
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
Neither unethical or cruel. It just is what it is...part of life...part of death. It's been going on since day one.
| 450_Ackley |
| (.375 member) |
| 30/06/11 08:23 AM |
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
After reading all the replies I don't think anyone so far has a problem with the "collateral damage" as you put it, we all accept that.
I think the big issue here is whether the photos needed to be posted on the PUBLIC part of this forum or on Facebook.
I've shot my fair share of 'roos years ago (under permit) and you always got a few joey's in pouches, had to happen, usually the nearest bullbar or tree sorted that out.
I don't see that as being cruel (infact the opposite really) and in long grass, no-one can tell if a doe has a joey in the pouch or not.
As someone put it to me yesterday, it's like giving someone a stick so they can then flog you with it.
David.
| PHMadness |
| (.275 member) |
| 30/06/11 08:25 AM |
|
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
I saw these on Facebook today. I am of the opinion most people are just silly. The anti gunners, anti hunters and such all seem to have forgotten how we fed ourselves for the last 50,000 years until the last century. We killed and ate things. There weren't prescribed seasons, only need for food.
Sure, the world is more "civilized" now, but at maybe greater cost to our survival. I take great pride in putting meat in the freezer to feed my family. Sometimes it's messy, but I'm ok with that.
I can also see the point some have made about exposing the non hunters and greenies as y'all call them to the more graphic images. It will incite some, but I personally see no reason to hide it.
Quote:
"I can't be the only one to notice that, in general, the anti hunters who patently exclaim hunting (and a situation such as this in particular) is both cruel and unethical are the very same whom celebrate a woman's freedom to kill her own unborn child?"
Can I get a freakin' amen? +1
| Empire375 |
| (.300 member) |
| 30/06/11 08:32 AM |
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
Wow
" it's like giving someone a stick so they can then flog you with it"
I tried to say exactly that in my posts on this topic!! THAT is spot on.
Publication is the issue. Not the practice
| 500Nitro |
| (.450 member) |
| 30/06/11 08:58 AM |
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
Quote:
Wow
"it's like giving someone a stick so they can then flog you with it"
I tried to say exactly that in my posts on this topic!! THAT is spot on.
Publication is the issue. Not the practice
Well said Empire.
We have enough Gov't Dept's and Anti's having a go at us without giving them the ammo.
I know it goes on, we all know it goes on, just no need to highlight it.
And no I am not being soft, just realistic.
The argument for / against hunting or hunter / gatherer lifestyle will not be made on the basis of FACTS but o the basis of emotion.
ie Look at how they stopped the baby seals being killed.
PUBLIC Emotion.
| Empire375 |
| (.300 member) |
| 30/06/11 09:15 AM |
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
I stole the quote from 450 Ackley. I don't know how to use the quote function!! Hence sadly I cannot take credit for that one.
| 450_Ackley |
| (.375 member) |
| 30/06/11 11:07 AM |
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
Neither can I, heard it from a wise Gentleman yesterday, but it stuck in my mind.
DC
|
NitroX
|
| (.700 member) |
| 30/06/11 04:45 PM |
|
|
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
Again I don't find the photo "shocking" at all. I find comments like that strange.
Maybe also I am less worried about upset people than others. Show it as it is and be upfront. If people, including even hunters, after explanation, find it shocking, then perhaps we need more, not less of natural history type displays.
Some hunters no doubt find the sight of blood on an animal distateful and shocking. Some forums, magazines, ban photos like that. I believe the SCI Show in the USA also bans that sort of thing. Funny that, is my opinion.
As the facebook page, surprisingly haven't got as many anti comments as expected, but some whom claim to be hunters, claiming they will "unfriend" the NE page as a result. Well boo hoo, I think a bit of purging of the ranks does an organisation or entity some good from time to time.
As for antis using it against us, ... big bloody deal. They already use anything against us. Perhaps if people understood where meat comes from, in full detail, they wouldn't be so shocked about stupid mundane things.
I asked for peoples comments, so have no problem with people expressing them.
I posted lots of photos of an elephant being butchered once, wonder if people felt similarly about that.
| kamilaroi |
| (.400 member) |
| 30/06/11 05:19 PM |
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
Quote:
So now only scientific publications should be allowed to publish photos of a natural history basis?
How limiting and restrictive.
Stupidiity is limiting ourselves and being too frightened to learn, and to display legitimate items of interest to others.
Certainly not. As I interpret the matter the other site's posts tend toward boasting rather than "part of the lifecycle".
"Playing the game" as Roberto would have it we have to display a greater "ethical" (media smart) approach without entering into a quasi philosophical debate with the "others". FWIW I have no qualms BUT I am thinking of the long term impact(s) among those less informed.
| 450_Ackley |
| (.375 member) |
| 30/06/11 07:33 PM |
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
Very well said Rick.
Regards,
David.
| kamilaroi |
| (.400 member) |
| 30/06/11 07:40 PM |
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
Ta mate.
| FATBOY404 |
| (.400 member) |
| 30/06/11 07:45 PM |
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
Kamilaroi.
I'm on your team on this one.
I have seen things that would make a lot of peoples stomach turn and if you hunt enough animals something will go wrong for sure but I don't think the general public should see it.
I have muelsed thousands of sheep and know the benefits of this practice but as soon as the general public saw it all hell broke loose.
Nature is more cruel than humans at times and we have seen the response of viewers to drought effected stock and so on.
| Mike_Bailey |
| (.400 member) |
| 30/06/11 08:16 PM |
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
Fatboy, what is "muelsed" ?
best
| FATBOY404 |
| (.400 member) |
| 30/06/11 08:33 PM |
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
Removing skin around a lambs bum when you remove the tail so that it doesn't grow wool.I will admit it looks a bit cruel but not as bad as dieing from maggots eating you alive.
As the sheep has a clean bum no urine or crap sticks in the wool to attract flies.
| Mike_Bailey |
| (.400 member) |
| 30/06/11 09:05 PM |
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
Learn something new everyday !! best
| Woodlea |
| (.224 member) |
| 30/06/11 10:21 PM |
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
If you shoot a female which is not pregnant, it will likely have a young fawn who will not survive without its mother. A developed foetus is the most reliable sight that it did not have a dependent fawn.
| JabaliHunter |
| (.400 member) |
| 01/07/11 01:56 AM |
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
Maybe, although it depends on how long the calf/fawn is dependent. But you can limit the season so that any foetus is far less developed than the one shown; except for animals like elephants with a very long gestation.
|
NitroX
|
| (.700 member) |
| 02/07/11 01:04 AM |
|
|
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
Quote:
... among those less informed.
Maybe we need to make people "more informed".
There is nothing actually shocking about that photo. Only some people's reaction.
The photo was originally included in the "Trip to Victoria" thread, merely because it was interesting.
People keep trying to put a different slant to it, with words such as "shocking", "boasting" etc, which must be coming from within their own heads.
This new thread with the photo was started to see what was going on in peoples thoughts on NE.
|
NitroX
|
| (.700 member) |
| 02/07/11 01:11 AM |
|
|
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
Quote:
Maybe, although it depends on how long the calf/fawn is dependent. But you can limit the season so that any foetus is far less developed than the one shown; except for animals like elephants with a very long gestation.
Not wanting to be rude, but do people read what is written?
This is about the third time this has been re-posted.
Quote:
Giving consideration to the fact sambar do not have a definite breeding season. A hind may be pregnant any time of the year. A stag may have hard antlers any time of the year.
So it is not the same as a limited viewpoint of say hunting red hinds during an "off season"?
Should sambar hinds never be killed?
So maybe this thread is truly educational after all.
| tophet1 |
| (.400 member) |
| 02/07/11 08:14 AM |
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
Posting that photo is a good way to get a reaction from people but it's really just tasteless.
| Dr_Deer |
| (.300 member) |
| 02/07/11 12:04 PM |
|
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
Well it'd be more educational if you ran a tape measure down the calfs back and estimated age & therefore date of conception
From a taxonomic perspective it's also of interest that sambar calves are born with spots down the spine that can be seen on the feotus from a certain age.
Really it presence is just a fact of life with shooting sambar hinds, the calf died when the mothers blood stopped circulating so it cannot be compared with a joey in a pouch that is dependent upon a hit to the head for a quick death.
| gryphon |
| (.450 member) |
| 02/07/11 12:35 PM |
|
|
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
Too add further a mate was having a few probs with deer at his property I went up this morning to lend a hand,it just happened that I had my 308NM with me for its first blood.
I was honked in thick cover last night without getting a crack thus todays change of hunt plans.
I saw the hind and a companion in the early morn and let rip a 180gr Norma load,it punched into the point of the left shoulder as she faced my way,continued through the heart and sliced the liver open also,luckily it didnt open the paunch.
Anyway after the shot I walked back and got the mate and he jumped onto his vineyard beast and dragged her back.She`s hanging in my shed now wholus bolus.This hind had a calf also,only as big as a buck ferret though and it was a stag calf too and the antler buds were readily delineated. I didn't bother with any pics.
As can be seen there was a fair frost on the slope and it was crunchy underfoot,this was taken over an hour after the shot by the time I walked back and we got the beast going.
| 450_Ackley |
| (.375 member) |
| 02/07/11 12:42 PM |
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
You've missed my point entirely, had neither mother been shot, neither foetus/joey would have died or needed a pat on the head.
Big deal, everyone's going to shoot a pregnant female at some stage, I think we can all agree on that here.
The main point here is not whether "we" need educating or re-educating about such matters, or whether "we" all need a teaspoon of cement or not.
The fact of the matter is that these photos are in poor taste and need not have been posted publically, in anything other than a scientific or research based forum.
Regards,
David.
| PHMadness |
| (.275 member) |
| 02/07/11 01:03 PM |
|
|
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
Quote:
The fact of the matter is that these photos are in poor taste and need not have been posted publically, in anything other than a scientific or research based forum.
Sorry I am a noob here without much street cred, but I just have to ask.
How is taste a fact? I always figured it was a personal judgement.
| Ben |
| (.400 member) |
| 02/07/11 02:37 PM |
|
|
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
Gryphon, well-done!
| 450_Ackley |
| (.375 member) |
| 02/07/11 03:36 PM |
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
I'd say by the comments that have been posted by numerous people previously on this post, where for the most part, if not all, agree that the photos should not have had a public posting. I would think that's enough fact that they are in poor taste, wouldn't you?
|
NitroX
|
| (.700 member) |
| 02/07/11 04:24 PM |
|
|
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
Quote:
The fact of the matter is that these photos are in poor taste and need not have been posted publically, in anything other than a scientific or research based forum.
Regards,
David.
Sorry but absolute BULLSHIT!
|
NitroX
|
| (.700 member) |
| 02/07/11 04:24 PM |
|
|
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
Quote:Quote:
The fact of the matter is that these photos are in poor taste and need not have been posted publically, in anything other than a scientific or research based forum.
Sorry I am a noob here without much street cred, but I just have to ask.
How is taste a fact? I always figured it was a personal judgement.
How true.
And many DO NOT mention TASTE, but instead talk about the effect of "politics".
|
NitroX
|
| (.700 member) |
| 02/07/11 04:25 PM |
|
|
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
Quote:
I'd say by the comments that have been posted by numerous people previously on this post, where for the most part, if not all, agree that the photos should not have had a public posting. I would think that's enough fact that they are in poor taste, wouldn't you?
Sorry MORE BULLSHIT.
No one forcing you to keep coming back to this thread if it offends you.
And the fact you keep posting on it just keeps bringing it back to the top and active, seems opposite to protestations of it being in "bad taste".
BYW I never asked whether it "should be posted or not".
|
NitroX
|
| (.700 member) |
| 02/07/11 04:43 PM |
|
|
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
BTW Well done Gryph on some more venison.
|
NitroX
|
| (.700 member) |
| 02/07/11 04:44 PM |
|
|
|
Re: Unethical or cruel?
|
Anyway will now close this thread if people are getting overly heated because of it. Anymore posts will probably just be repeating of what has already been said.