Contrary to domestic pigs, wild pigs r very clean animals.
When Hunter shoots a wild hog, the hog becomes very aggressive and runs towards the direction from where the bullet came and dies on the way.
Puratan Singhs loved the meat of wild hog. It's very tasty and good for health.
There's a system to what they do in these situations on television. It's something I've observed for a while now, and there's a definite structure to it. They have a contentious subject and they invite two people who will argue their respective opposing viewpoints on that particular subject.
There's the reactionary, leftist viewpoint which is usually represented by a journalist from the Guardian or a figure with a fringe Leftist organisation. The other participant is someone who represents what would traditionally be seen as the Right-wing viewpoint, but it's not really Right at all; it's what some would assume to be a fuddy-duddy, traditional perspective of the Little Englander who's stuck in the past, but is actually what we recognise as the classic liberal before the Commies took over the Left.
Morgan may seem like the level-headed, perhaps conservative (small C) voice of reason who speaks on behalf of the average viewer, but even then the so-called debate never transcends the neo-liberal paradigm in which the discussion takes place. Depending on the final outcome of the debate, or the suggested ideological direction these programmes would like the audience at home to gravitate to, Morgan directs the discussion to that place with his brusque interventions and domineering behaviour. The genius of this charade is that it manages to push the average viewer, which is whom these debates actually target, into agreeing with an argument not on its merits or its values, but based on whoever makes the strongest appeals to the pre-existing sentiment of the viewer. Then there's the whole issue of the Overton Window and what's allowed in public discourse, etc., but that's a subject for another day.