The North Canterbury Hunting Competition Is No Conservation Effort — It's Cruelty Disguised
The North Canterbury hunt is a competition that kills many animals. While public outrage rightly focuses on the inclusion of a cat-killing category in the North Canterbury Hunting Competition, we must not lose sight of the broader reality - this event inflicts immense suffering on many animals — and worse, it hides behind the false banner of "conservation."
Let's be clear about the cat issue first.
The competition's method of trapping cats and the incentivised killer making the judgment about whether they are "feral" or "companion" is deeply flawed. A trapped, terrified animal, whether companion or feral, behaves similarly when panicked. Without mandatory microchipping, accurate identification is impossible and therefore illegal when killing cats that aren't feral. The "conservation" excuse used also lacks any real scientific credibility. Habitat loss, not cats, is the primary driver of native species decline. Studies show that culling can actually worsen ecological problems by triggering higher breeding and hunting rates among survivors.
Organisers provide no local evidence to back their claims about cats harming the native bird population and their own website reveals the real motives - cats are included not based on scientific need, but because the controversy helped drive sponsorships, media coverage and turnout. This is about publicity, not conservation. Worse still, involving children in this violent event is very disturbing. Teaching young people to kill is normalising cruelty and dulling empathy — something consistently linked in research to higher risks of future interpersonal violence.
A simple glance at Google Maps shows that Rotherham isn't surrounded by pristine wilderness, it's dominated by farmland. And here lies the real question: who is the pest? Compared to the massive, ongoing environmental destruction caused by agriculture, especially intensive dairying, the impact of wild animals like deer, pigs, possums, geese, rabbits, or feral cats is almost negligible. Are these animals seen as "pests" simply because they are inconvenient for farmers?
And if so, why are we allowing that narrative to hijack the language of conservation? New Zealand has long been trapped in a warlike mentality toward so-called "pest" species. Predator Free 2050 is framed as a noble mission, but at its heart lies violence and mass killing, not care or restoration. We use military language 'invaders,' 'eradication,' 'weapons,' — to justify the widespread slaughter of animals who were, ironically, only here because of human colonisation.
As Samah Seger and Philip McKibbin powerfully describe in War on Pests, 'So-called 'pests' are animals, like dogs and humans: they are sentient, they have interests, and they maintain relationships. And they are among the most mistreated animals in the world — especially those who live here in Aotearoa.' We demonise and destroy these animals while ignoring far greater harm: The real environmental destruction is not caused by possums, rabbits, or feral cats. It is caused by us.
If we were truly serious about protecting Aotearoa's natural world, we would be confronting industrial farming, land degradation, climate pollution — not scapegoating vulnerable animals because it's easier.
There are humane, sustainable alternatives to the violence we too often accept such as investing in widespread desexing initiatives, supporting Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) programs, rewilding degraded farmland, reducing our reliance on animal agriculture and restoring native plant species that nurture native wildlife, just to name a few.
Knowing this competition has started makes my heart hurt for the many animals that will suffer and die. We tell ourselves that the death of these animals is quick, that they don't suffer. But the truth is much darker. I've seen the bodies of the animals killed in this event. I've witnessed the brutality of it. And I've experienced extreme harassment from the organisers and attendees, even though I remained peaceful in my stance. Their attitude spoke volumes, a culture of cruelty masked as "sport," where empathy is an afterthought and violence is rewarded.
Killing animals is never acceptable, under any circumstances. The cruelty is compounded when it is disguised - when lies and myths are used to justify it, and people are encouraged to believe it serves a noble cause. Killing animals for the sake of a competition devalues life, reduces sentient beings to mere prizes, and breeds a culture of cruelty where empathy is replaced by the thrill of violence.
This is cruelty… for the animals, for the children and even harms those participating. And it needs to end.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
24-05-2025
- RNZ News
Principal speaks out against keyboard warriors after alleged assault
Oxford Area School principal Mike Hart. Photo: David Hill / North Canterbury News All schools grapple with ''challenging student behaviour'' and it is not helped by social media outbursts, a North Canterbury principal says. Rangiora High School principal Bruce Kearney said he felt for his colleagues, when critics took to social media following an incident this week at Oxford Area School. A student was taken to Christchurch Hospital with injuries, after being reportedly assaulted by another Oxford Area School student on Wednesday. Challenging behaviour happened in all schools and most followed restorative processes when addressing the behaviour, Kearney said. ''Kids do dumb things and our role is to teach them the consequences of their actions,'' he said. ''We try to hold young people to account for their actions in a kind and positive way, but social media isn't interested in that.'' He said people should not assume every ''unpleasant incident is bullying''. ''Bullying is ongoing emotional abuse, and it happens everywhere and not just in schools. It happens in the workplace, in the home, out in the community and online.'' While some social media critics wanted schools to return to corporal punishment, Kearney said that was not the answer. ''It is teaching a student, 'I'm going to hit you, because you hit someone else'.'' Rangiora High School presiding board member Simon Green and principal Bruce Kearney. Photo: LDR / David Hill Like politicians, Kearney said school principals were often targets of online abuse, including death threats. Rangiora High School was one of several schools to participate in the recent Pink Shirt Day. Oxford Area School board of trustees presiding member Aaron Campbell referred enquiries about the incident at OAS to principal Mike Hart. In a statement, Hart said the school was following its procedures to work through the incident. He asked the community to contact the school, if they with any concerns or questions. ''Our thoughts and heartfelt support are with the student and their whānau during this time. ''We know this may be unsettling, and we are doing everything we can to ensure the wellbeing of all involved.'' Rangiora High School board of trustees presiding member Simon Green said schools had always grappled with ''challenging student behaviour'', which was an emotive topic. He said the board worked with school leadership to ensure bullying was addressed promptly and constructively, with ''a focus on restoring relationships and building a culture of respect and accountability''. A Ministry of Education spokesperson said staff had been in contact with Oxford Area School and were confident school staff were following appropriate procedures. Oxford Area School has students from years 1-13. Local Democracy Reporting noted several Oxford Facebook pages had blocked comments on the incident. LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
Scoop
13-05-2025
- Scoop
The North Canterbury Hunting Competition Is No Conservation Effort — It's Cruelty Disguised
Article – Animal Justice Party If we were truly serious about protecting Aotearoas natural world, we would be confronting industrial farming, land degradation, climate pollution not scapegoating vulnerable animals because it's easier. The North Canterbury hunt is a competition that kills many animals. While public outrage rightly focuses on the inclusion of a cat-killing category in the North Canterbury Hunting Competition, we must not lose sight of the broader reality – this event inflicts immense suffering on many animals — and worse, it hides behind the false banner of 'conservation.' Let's be clear about the cat issue first. The competition's method of trapping cats and the incentivised killer making the judgment about whether they are 'feral' or 'companion' is deeply flawed. A trapped, terrified animal, whether companion or feral, behaves similarly when panicked. Without mandatory microchipping, accurate identification is impossible and therefore illegal when killing cats that aren't feral. The 'conservation' excuse used also lacks any real scientific credibility. Habitat loss, not cats, is the primary driver of native species decline. Studies show that culling can actually worsen ecological problems by triggering higher breeding and hunting rates among survivors. Organisers provide no local evidence to back their claims about cats harming the native bird population and their own website reveals the real motives – cats are included not based on scientific need, but because the controversy helped drive sponsorships, media coverage and turnout. This is about publicity, not conservation. Worse still, involving children in this violent event is very disturbing. Teaching young people to kill is normalising cruelty and dulling empathy — something consistently linked in research to higher risks of future interpersonal violence. A simple glance at Google Maps shows that Rotherham isn't surrounded by pristine wilderness, it's dominated by farmland. And here lies the real question: who is the pest? Compared to the massive, ongoing environmental destruction caused by agriculture, especially intensive dairying, the impact of wild animals like deer, pigs, possums, geese, rabbits, or feral cats is almost negligible. Are these animals seen as 'pests' simply because they are inconvenient for farmers? And if so, why are we allowing that narrative to hijack the language of conservation? New Zealand has long been trapped in a warlike mentality toward so-called 'pest' species. Predator Free 2050 is framed as a noble mission, but at its heart lies violence and mass killing, not care or restoration. We use military language 'invaders,' 'eradication,' 'weapons,' — to justify the widespread slaughter of animals who were, ironically, only here because of human colonisation. As Samah Seger and Philip McKibbin powerfully describe in War on Pests, 'So-called 'pests' are animals, like dogs and humans: they are sentient, they have interests, and they maintain relationships. And they are among the most mistreated animals in the world — especially those who live here in Aotearoa.' We demonise and destroy these animals while ignoring far greater harm: The real environmental destruction is not caused by possums, rabbits, or feral cats. It is caused by us. If we were truly serious about protecting Aotearoa's natural world, we would be confronting industrial farming, land degradation, climate pollution — not scapegoating vulnerable animals because it's easier. There are humane, sustainable alternatives to the violence we too often accept such as investing in widespread desexing initiatives, supporting Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) programs, rewilding degraded farmland, reducing our reliance on animal agriculture and restoring native plant species that nurture native wildlife, just to name a few. Knowing this competition has started makes my heart hurt for the many animals that will suffer and die. We tell ourselves that the death of these animals is quick, that they don't suffer. But the truth is much darker. I've seen the bodies of the animals killed in this event. I've witnessed the brutality of it. And I've experienced extreme harassment from the organisers and attendees, even though I remained peaceful in my stance. Their attitude spoke volumes, a culture of cruelty masked as 'sport,' where empathy is an afterthought and violence is rewarded. Killing animals is never acceptable, under any circumstances. The cruelty is compounded when it is disguised – when lies and myths are used to justify it, and people are encouraged to believe it serves a noble cause. Killing animals for the sake of a competition devalues life, reduces sentient beings to mere prizes, and breeds a culture of cruelty where empathy is replaced by the thrill of violence. This is cruelty… for the animals, for the children and even harms those participating. And it needs to end.
Scoop
13-05-2025
- Scoop
The North Canterbury Hunting Competition Is No Conservation Effort — It's Cruelty Disguised
The North Canterbury hunt is a competition that kills many animals. While public outrage rightly focuses on the inclusion of a cat-killing category in the North Canterbury Hunting Competition, we must not lose sight of the broader reality - this event inflicts immense suffering on many animals — and worse, it hides behind the false banner of "conservation." Let's be clear about the cat issue first. The competition's method of trapping cats and the incentivised killer making the judgment about whether they are "feral" or "companion" is deeply flawed. A trapped, terrified animal, whether companion or feral, behaves similarly when panicked. Without mandatory microchipping, accurate identification is impossible and therefore illegal when killing cats that aren't feral. The "conservation" excuse used also lacks any real scientific credibility. Habitat loss, not cats, is the primary driver of native species decline. Studies show that culling can actually worsen ecological problems by triggering higher breeding and hunting rates among survivors. Organisers provide no local evidence to back their claims about cats harming the native bird population and their own website reveals the real motives - cats are included not based on scientific need, but because the controversy helped drive sponsorships, media coverage and turnout. This is about publicity, not conservation. Worse still, involving children in this violent event is very disturbing. Teaching young people to kill is normalising cruelty and dulling empathy — something consistently linked in research to higher risks of future interpersonal violence. A simple glance at Google Maps shows that Rotherham isn't surrounded by pristine wilderness, it's dominated by farmland. And here lies the real question: who is the pest? Compared to the massive, ongoing environmental destruction caused by agriculture, especially intensive dairying, the impact of wild animals like deer, pigs, possums, geese, rabbits, or feral cats is almost negligible. Are these animals seen as "pests" simply because they are inconvenient for farmers? And if so, why are we allowing that narrative to hijack the language of conservation? New Zealand has long been trapped in a warlike mentality toward so-called "pest" species. Predator Free 2050 is framed as a noble mission, but at its heart lies violence and mass killing, not care or restoration. We use military language 'invaders,' 'eradication,' 'weapons,' — to justify the widespread slaughter of animals who were, ironically, only here because of human colonisation. As Samah Seger and Philip McKibbin powerfully describe in War on Pests, 'So-called 'pests' are animals, like dogs and humans: they are sentient, they have interests, and they maintain relationships. And they are among the most mistreated animals in the world — especially those who live here in Aotearoa.' We demonise and destroy these animals while ignoring far greater harm: The real environmental destruction is not caused by possums, rabbits, or feral cats. It is caused by us. If we were truly serious about protecting Aotearoa's natural world, we would be confronting industrial farming, land degradation, climate pollution — not scapegoating vulnerable animals because it's easier. There are humane, sustainable alternatives to the violence we too often accept such as investing in widespread desexing initiatives, supporting Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) programs, rewilding degraded farmland, reducing our reliance on animal agriculture and restoring native plant species that nurture native wildlife, just to name a few. Knowing this competition has started makes my heart hurt for the many animals that will suffer and die. We tell ourselves that the death of these animals is quick, that they don't suffer. But the truth is much darker. I've seen the bodies of the animals killed in this event. I've witnessed the brutality of it. And I've experienced extreme harassment from the organisers and attendees, even though I remained peaceful in my stance. Their attitude spoke volumes, a culture of cruelty masked as "sport," where empathy is an afterthought and violence is rewarded. Killing animals is never acceptable, under any circumstances. The cruelty is compounded when it is disguised - when lies and myths are used to justify it, and people are encouraged to believe it serves a noble cause. Killing animals for the sake of a competition devalues life, reduces sentient beings to mere prizes, and breeds a culture of cruelty where empathy is replaced by the thrill of violence. This is cruelty… for the animals, for the children and even harms those participating. And it needs to end.
