Are some animals evil?

[pErvinalia]

Would it be easy to get? Genuine question, as I don't really know how tough our laws are. I used to own one via my Dad, but it went to a better home at a friend's relative's farm after my Dad died. The problem is, even if I could get one, I doubt I would be able to carry one around fully assembled in the car ready to shoot a cat or fox on sight. I'd have to get a professional shooter's license for that.

[JimC]

You would certainly need a shooter's licence, and the rifle would need to be registered. When carrying it in a car on public roads, it would certainly need to be unloaded, and possibly with the bolt removed as well, which I admit would make a quick response to a feral animal difficult.

(When I owned rifles, I remember carrying an old bolt action 303-250 into the city to a gun shop for some work. It was in a rifle case, slung over my shoulder, and quite naturally, I was stopped by the cops. I had taken the precaution of removing the bolt, and had my shooter's licence with me, so all was well...)

[Hermit]

Hermit, as a member of a cat's staff myself, I have to disagree to an extent. Cats (even domestic ones) certainly can do a lot of damage to the bird population;

Thanks for the strawman, Jimbo. It seems to me that you are missing a critical nuance. Please be so kind and reread what I said. If you don't feel like combing through the thread, just check out the following precis.

I did mention somewhere along the line a figure of 200 million a year, having what David Attenborough said about cats and birds in the UK in mind. Regardless of the accuracy of the figure I pretty much plucked out of the air, that is a huge number of birds killed by cats every year in one country alone, don't you think? What I can't get through to Scott Douchy is that "compared to us bipeds, cats have done fuck-all by way of environmental damage". Really, 200 million or whatever is a big number - "a lot of damage to the bird population", as you put it - when looked at in isolation, but the moment it is placed next to the damage to the bird population inflicted by human development in a graph, it shrinks to near invisibility. In comparison it becomes insignificant.

[Hermit]

Would it be easy to get?

No. "I want to shoot some bunnies/feral cats." no longer qualifies as a "genuine reason". The list of genuine reasons can be found in a PDF document issued by the NSW Police Force and titled Information on obtaining a Firearms Licence in NSW. It also informs you that it will cost you $100 for two years and $200 for five.

When I had a shooters license it cost me $2 for four years. The reason for why I got one and how amuses me to this day, but it will probably bore anyone else BIG bore.

[pErvinalia]

Hermit, as a member of a cat's staff myself, I have to disagree to an extent. Cats (even domestic ones) certainly can do a lot of damage to the bird population;

Thanks for the strawman, Jimbo. It seems to me that you are missing a critical nuance. Please be so kind and reread what I said. If you don't feel like combing through the thread, just check out the following precis.

I did mention somewhere along the line a figure of 200 million a year, having what David Attenborough said about cats and birds in the UK in mind. Regardless of the accuracy of the figure I pretty much plucked out of the air, that is a huge number of birds killed by cats every year in one country alone, don't you think? What I can't get through to Scott Douchy is that "compared to us bipeds, cats have done fuck-all by way of environmental damage". Really, 200 million or whatever is a big number - "a lot of damage to the bird population", as you put it - when looked at in isolation, but the moment it is placed next to the damage to the bird population inflicted by human development in a graph, it shrinks to near invisibility. In comparison it becomes insignificant.

Yes, we heard you the first time, FortyTwo.

[pErvinalia]

Would it be easy to get?

No. "I want to shoot some bunnies/feral cats." no longer qualifies as a "genuine reason". The list of genuine reasons can be found in a PDF document issued by the NSW Police Force and titled Information on obtaining a Firearms Licence in NSW. It also informs you that it will cost you $100 for two years and $200 for five.

When I had a shooters license it cost me $2 for four years. The reason for why I got one and how amuses me to this day, but it will probably bore anyone else BIG bore.

If I was still on the farm and had money I would have got one by now. But living on the coast there's not much reason for a gun. Except for when the government comes to ENSLAVE ME AND TAKE MY FREEDUM!!1

[Hermit]

Hermit, as a member of a cat's staff myself, I have to disagree to an extent. Cats (even domestic ones) certainly can do a lot of damage to the bird population;

Thanks for the strawman, Jimbo. It seems to me that you are missing a critical nuance. Please be so kind and reread what I said. If you don't feel like combing through the thread, just check out the following precis.

I did mention somewhere along the line a figure of 200 million a year, having what David Attenborough said about cats and birds in the UK in mind. Regardless of the accuracy of the figure I pretty much plucked out of the air, that is a huge number of birds killed by cats every year in one country alone, don't you think? What I can't get through to Scott Douchy is that "compared to us bipeds, cats have done fuck-all by way of environmental damage". Really, 200 million or whatever is a big number - "a lot of damage to the bird population", as you put it - when looked at in isolation, but the moment it is placed next to the damage to the bird population inflicted by human development in a graph, it shrinks to near invisibility. In comparison it becomes insignificant.

Yes, we heard you the first time, FortyTwo.

[JimC]

Hermit, as a member of a cat's staff myself, I have to disagree to an extent. Cats (even domestic ones) certainly can do a lot of damage to the bird population;

Thanks for the strawman, Jimbo. It seems to me that you are missing a critical nuance. Please be so kind and reread what I said. If you don't feel like combing through the thread, just check out the following precis.

I did mention somewhere along the line a figure of 200 million a year, having what David Attenborough said about cats and birds in the UK in mind. Regardless of the accuracy of the figure I pretty much plucked out of the air, that is a huge number of birds killed by cats every year in one country alone, don't you think? What I can't get through to Scott Douchy is that "compared to us bipeds, cats have done fuck-all by way of environmental damage". Really, 200 million or whatever is a big number - "a lot of damage to the bird population", as you put it - when looked at in isolation, but the moment it is placed next to the damage to the bird population inflicted by human development in a graph, it shrinks to near invisibility. In comparison it becomes insignificant.

The comparison doesn't matter; the effect of cats on wild populations is part of the whole human effect on the biosphere, and one that can at least be managed. Of course, I reject the implication of Scot's "Get rid of all cats", but my point was simply the pragmatic one that humans have an obligation to reduce the extent to which their acts prey on native species as far as possible, and that truly feral cats need eradication ASAP...

[Hermit]

the effect of cats on wild populations is part of the whole human effect on the biosphere, and one that can at least be managed. Of course, I reject the implication of Scot's "Get rid of all cats", but my point was simply the pragmatic one that humans have an obligation to reduce the extent to which their acts prey on native species as far as possible, and that truly feral cats need eradication ASAP...

After excising "The comparison doesn't matter" from your reply I have no difficulty agreeing 100% with the remainder of your reply.

In the days when I shot rabbits in the Snowies, I never encountered a feral cat, but if I had, I would have shot it without hesitation. I also used to remove unfortunate prey from the jaws of my cats, but after discovering that the unfortunate victims died afterwards within minutes and without exception, I gave up on that.

[Scot Dutchy]

Hermit, as a member of a cat's staff myself, I have to disagree to an extent. Cats (even domestic ones) certainly can do a lot of damage to the bird population;

Thanks for the strawman, Jimbo. It seems to me that you are missing a critical nuance. Please be so kind and reread what I said. If you don't feel like combing through the thread, just check out the following precis.

I did mention somewhere along the line a figure of 200 million a year, having what David Attenborough said about cats and birds in the UK in mind. Regardless of the accuracy of the figure I pretty much plucked out of the air, that is a huge number of birds killed by cats every year in one country alone, don't you think? What I can't get through to Scott Douchy is that "compared to us bipeds, cats have done fuck-all by way of environmental damage". Really, 200 million or whatever is a big number - "a lot of damage to the bird population", as you put it - when looked at in isolation, but the moment it is placed next to the damage to the bird population inflicted by human development in a graph, it shrinks to near invisibility. In comparison it becomes insignificant.

Despite even when someone like Sir David Attenborough says anything you declare they are lies. They are the results of scientific investigations carried out by respected bodies but for you that are lies. An estimated 275 million prey are killed by domestic cats of which 55 million are birds in Britain alone.
Also they way they kill you dont find repugnant. You allow your animal to 'play' with a prey for half an hour before killing it and that does not bother you.

Cats are part of the problem we are causing to the environment as they belong to us. Without us very few would survive.

[Forty Two]

Consider the shark? it's had yonks to develop a complex moral compass and move away from eating anything that moves in the water. No change at all. It's not like culture couldn't develop and social customs - it doesn't appear to want to change, though.

No, animals aren't evil. There's no such thing as "species." It's a social construct built on our humanarchical society.

Sharks, you say? What you view as a shark is just a cultural stereotype. You don't know if that shark identifies as a clown fish, or as lobster.

[Forty Two]

When you are clearly the top of the chain, you don't need a moral compass towards other animals. Unfortunately for the shark it has been surpassed by us at the top of the chain, so it needs to sort its shit out quick smart!

Chain? that's not an accurate representation of the food-hierarchy. It's more of a food net than a chain. She shark is just one square in the great fishnet of life.

[Forty Two]

In past times in England, animals that killed a man (like a bull goring a farmer to death) were actually put on trial, and sentenced to death...

Luckily, they civilized themselves, and animals convicted of crimes were simply given finite punishments for their misdeeds. You'll see oxen in stocks being pelted with tomatoes on the Bayeaux Tapestry. They used to jail slutty hens in Salem Massachusetts in the 17th century.

[Svartalf]

Swans are evil, beady-eyed, nasty fucker.

Swans are delicious game fowl

[Brian Peacock]

... If you like the taste of mud. I prefer Panda.