Thursday, March 8, 2007

Stupidity in Spain

This kind of stuff really pisses me off for several reasons. First off, is simply the fact that it is simply idiotic, gratuitous cruelty that seems to serve no real legitimate purpose. Secondly, is the effect that this kind of idiocy has on legitimate hunting. ARAs would be quick to try to attempt to link this type of activity with traditional hunting in their propaganda. It is not hunting, however. There is nothing about catapulting baby quail into the air and shooting them that is in the spirit of conservation, sportsmanship, or fair chase. Nothing at all. This is the kind of thing that all sportsmen should be quick to condemn. Our future depends upon making sure the public clearly understands the difference between sportsmanship and gratuitous cruelty and stupidity.

1 comment:

aloe2 said...

It really is a horrible, senseless display of animal cruelty. There isn’t any link between this pointless and gratuitous animal injury and death and traditional managed and wise use hunting. As you say, traditional hunting s about habitat-animal conservation and ethical sportsmanship. This quail catapulting is done for the mere visceral fun of blowing up as many animals as possible for some plastic prothy and a few pesetas. It is done with total indifference towards animal welfare, from raising them to launching and shooting them.

It’s unfortunate that some have turned it into a pissing contest over whether Spain, with its quail catapulting, bull fighting, and its once annual tradition of chucking a live goat from a church steeple is the worse animal-abuser than Germany, with its past and modified, respectively, traditions of tomcat poking and live goose clubbing. It’s become, for some, an issue of one nationality’s moral hypocricy for criticizing another country’s anti-beastly ways. Yet, the German animal welfare society (German Animal Protection Federation) that’s being slammed for criticising Spain’s quail catapulting has just as roundly criticized its own country for its cruel traditions.

I can also see that some may argue, as they do with folks who condemn cockfighting, that the notion of animal cruelty and wonton abuse are a matter of personal definition and so its wrong to tell a group of people not to engage in an animal-use pursuit as they see fit and provided it doesn’t infringe upon human rights/liberties. I disagree. Animal cruelty can be defined nonarbitrarily and at minimum as the infliction of physical pain, suffering, injury or death upon an animal when not necessary for whatever ligitimate purpose (to procure food, to train, etc.) and when done wontonly, for mere sport, or with reckless indifference to is welfare. Baby quail catapulting clearly falls in the category of animal cruelty. Arguing from tradition, history, culture, and minority group status is not a justification for this kind of animal use and mistreatment.

Another thing that concerns me is when people argue from the slippery slope standpoint. That is, though sportsmen and women who may find baby quail catapulting abhorrent, beware of urban concrete-dwelling folks, especially “AR” advocates who find hunting, trapping, and similar pursuits as repugnant and unnecessary. So, if sportsmen and women criticize or support the banning of things like baby quail catapulting, hunting and fishing will be next, and then pet keeping, and so on. It’s true that for some folks hunting and fishing are cruel and unnecessary. But, as pointed out at the beginning, there is a huge difference between sport hunting and quail catapulting. Protecting genuine animal abuse is not a good basis for protecting genuinely legitimate forms of animal use. By not objecting to animal cruelty one is giving credence to the “AR” cause and concerns.

CarolWR