Dunno, difficult to talk about animal rights, not a big fan of the concept, but I'm not sure that there should be no legal repercussions for horrendous abuse of an animal.
Just picked up a cookery book from Britain's own back to nature chef, he goes through the year month by month talking about what is in season and providing a few recipes. In the 'November' chapter he talks about game bird shooting, something he doesn't apologise for doing. He does however say that it is a crying shame that the way the (lucrative) sport is organised in this country means that a lot of shot birds go uneaten, sometimes just ploughed into the field. I don't like that attitude towards animals too much, if it's food someone should eat it..
Ian, an interesting historical note I think, is that a major cultural influence on your own country and mine (more mine I think, particularly since they make up the majority of my ancestors, and probably {but not definitely} not the majority of yours), were a group that influenced some of the first 'anti-animal-cruelty' laws in the history of the post renaissance developed western world (my trivia mind tells me that Judaism first developed it for the western world, but I can't recall a reference, other than that in the movie "Masada", where they claimed that orthodox Judaism prohibited causing unneccesary pain to animals), the Puritans.
As I understand it, bear-baiting, bull-baiting, and cockfighting were first banned in 17th century England and New England at the hands of the Puritans. Lord Thomas Macaulay cynically claimed
"The Puritan hated bear-baiting, not because it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators.. My understanding of the actual thinking behind the endorsement of the bans, wasn't that it gave pleasure to humans, but that it gave pleasure to humans in a manner that the Puritans found morally debasing (to gain pleasure from the pain of other beings) and generally unwholesome for society at large. I'm a libertarian in general, but I can't say I am opposed in principle (although I can most certainly find many manners in which I'd be opposed to them in current practice) to laws that protect animals from pointless pain. 'The devil is in the details' I guess is the cliche that best describes that thought of mine.
I find it amusingly ironic that you and I (who are probably worlds apart regarding systems and thought processes of coming to moral judgements) and you and I and the Puritans (who are definitely worlds apart regarding systems and thought processes of coming to moral judgements) all seem to have achieved the same conclusion here.
Regarding your comment on shot birds going uneaten, I can't agree more. It is horribly wasteful, of both the value of wild game (which you can see in spades by reading the thread on this board about the Texas dove season), and the value of a life, which even if small, still has a calculable value in my moral process. If you enjoy the sport of shooting birds, by all means enjoy - but don't waste them!
Matthew 10
Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.P.S. What is the name of "Britain's own back to nature chef"? I just had a thought that I think I should email to Ted Nugent's public affairs department - wouldn't it be a hoot to have a two part television special where Ted goes to England and learns some fancy cooking from him, and then he comes to Texas and learns some fancy shooting from Ted? I think since this fellow enjoys shooting and Ted enjoys cooking game, it would be a particularly good match.