I can think of few things more repugnant or dangerous than stifling academic freedom, debate, search for truth, I would rather tolerate a 100 bigots as academics than stop one explore difficult subjects. It is not as if we get rid of bigots this way, we just replace old ones with https://twitter.com/Nikolaj_Bi/status/1350445963958132736

new. Truth is hard, it is contested as it should be, debate, facts, open free forum that has biggest impact on bigots.

I worry about a world in which a persons belief feels able by threat, violence, mob rule to suppress others freedom, others belief.

We can loath what others do

and fight for a world which gives them the freedom to do it

Tyranny by the majority is still tyranny, while society does change, some are driven to force a level of change beyond rationality based on their own belief, they demonise what is in truth not wrong just radically

different, perhaps hunting is the most obvious example of this. It is easy to believe lies about hunting, to accept propaganda that hunting is causing extinction (in some cases it could). Many hunters are repugnant, have limited restraint or values, but some are good

conservationists, naturalists, allies. Sometimes what they do is needed. What we should remember is little in humanity is more basic and ancient than hunting, we may lose much more humanity than we realise if we lose that connection.

If you have not read A Sand County Almanac: And Sketches Here and There, you have missed something vital

https://www.aldoleopold.org/teach-learn/green-fire-film/leopold-quotes/

It was recommended to me by a vegetarian hippy

As I have stated before I accept trophy hunting as a tool, but do not like it, food hunting, or management of populations, removal of invasive species are all things have no problem with, trophy hunting is tolerating because of current problem something I dislike.

I prefer to hope for a world without the huge imbalances of wealth, unfair system which creates super wealth which can indulge in foibles and conspicuous consumption. One in which community can conserve and live with nature.

We do not at present live in that world, right now habitat and populations of animals are very vulnerable, if trophy hunting sustains them until the world is a better place then so be it. That better place for me still includes food hunting.

With respect, skill, concern, welfare.

I am not a hunter, but I have been involved with both hunters and farmers who have that mentality, it is a valid way of living, based on ancient wisdom and interaction with life, some good conservationists and people.

I remember a wildfowling, hunting woodsman say to me years ago if you see any signs of badger baiting tell us we will put a stop to that evil activity, I never did, hated by the people in that location. Cruelty and malice does exist, we should all act against that bigotry.

Hunter and all should fight against the cruel, the commercial vested interests, the cozy old boys club and their easy bigoted lies. They never change anything, they excuse anything which suits them, enriches them. They are an enemy to rationality.

However they justify their activities with undoubted cleverness and argument, thing is we know they just don’t care a damn, life is just a bit of target practise, a game, some money. Hunt for food, kill because of need, not for a bit of fun.

Of course this is complex, I am no purist, you would enjoy a day out hunting, and I don’t care if you release a few pheasants. Most of us feel a deep repugnance at thousands of dead pheasants, another entertainment business, like tourism, like so much, damaging through excess and

lack of balance everything it touches.

You are not a hunter if you can not live with hen harrier or peregrine, you are an exploiter, a bigot, a destroyer of balance, you have no love of wild, you are nothing but a city bean counter having a jolly in country, or their lackey.

In my opinion nobody has represented this balance better in recent years than Ray Mears

Peter Scott being the prime example of brilliant innovative conservationist, artist, naturalist, and hunter.

We are approaching a population of 70 million in UK, our winter ducks are not our birds, they cross a continent. Few people should be wildfowlers due to impact of our numbers, disturbance. Many more people can hunt and eat wood pigeon, deer, grey squirrel, all cause damage and

are good abundant food. We have so many rich that elite ‘sport’ such as pheasants are now so common and on such a scale as to be both repugnant and potentially damaging. Plenty of room to argue and to demand change.

You all can be honest with yourselves, which is it? the abuse of hunting or hunting at you hate?

If it is killing at all that is your choice, impose that on others I am against you, and I am not alone.

If you think killing and eating meat is morally wrong that is your belief, I do not share it, heard all the arguments, they mean nothing to me, it is like hearing religious banging on about their cult, fine get on with it, leave me alone.

I doubt you will ever get a majority to agree, but if you did and use that to impose your beliefs it is oppression, every discussion about democracy accepts majorities can be unjust to minorities, it would be repugnant to force feed meat to vegans.

As to hunting Aldo Leopold would not I think look at Upland moor monoculture for grouse shooting and see ecological intelligence or best practise. I doubt he would see pheasant shooting as such. I think he would say we should eat more deer, grey squirrel, canada geese, greylags.

He would point out predators alone (important to protect and reintroduce them) would not control populations we feed to great excess with our agriculture.