Jump to content

gerfalcon

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    188

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by gerfalcon

  1. gerfalcon
    Not being pedantic but I beg to differ. He looks decidedly average. Certain no where near a medal, even a bronze! Still, good photo's Rem. I bow to your superior knowledge looks like he has a tine, so can't be too bad. I wasnt looking at the buck I was more interested in the facial expression on the doe she looked superb didnt she As I said originally,he had a decent length,but no weight to it.I think I saw him a few years back and he was a medal then for sure,same length but thick as yer thumb. M Perhaps your right. Personally in the 3 photos posted he do
  2. gerfalcon
    Not being pedantic but I beg to differ. He looks decidedly average. Certain no where near a medal, even a bronze! Still, good photo's Rem. I bow to your superior knowledge looks like he has a tine, so can't be too bad. No need to bow. I'm not sure the buck does have any decent brow tines. I think what you perceive to be tines is in fact part of the hedge and due to the image blurring have confused one with the other.
  3. gerfalcon
    Not being pedantic but I beg to differ. He looks decidedly average. Certain no where near a medal, even a bronze! Still, good photo's Rem.
  4. gerfalcon
    The points you've raised regarding dogmen in you first paragraph are inter-connected. There is a high level of antipathy towards dogmen from a large cross section of society , who might or might not be unduly influenced by the bad press, and the marketing activities of the likes of the LACS and PETA. Theres wide spread antipathy as well from other field sports participants who tend to be more reliably informed and less swayed by the AR hearts and minds marketing. One reason for the other field sports participants antipathy, you have already high lighted. These multiple reasons, actual or per
  5. gerfalcon
    Nice one Jimmy There nothing like keeping it real.
  6. gerfalcon
    I had just made the decision to say no more when you posted your comments. So I'll give this thread 1 more go around. I think you'll find all of my posts to be of an adult nature as for personal insults and ineffective ridicule aren't my style. I leave the personal insults to other and my ridicule when circumstance dictates that its applied is damn effective. Its obvious your definition of a clean kill varies from the majority held view. No kill that necessitates a chase can be considered clean. Clean requires the ending of a deers life with the absolute minimum of drama, stress and d
  7. gerfalcon
    You have both raised interesting points. What happens when the methogoly is deemed to be unethical and the justification judged to be non-existent? Where does the sporting aspect go? Stalking/ Deer control is not immune from these criticisms. Take the recent mass culls of Scotlands red deer herds in the name of Caledonia Forest preservation for instance.
  8. gerfalcon
    Stu I leave the porkies to others my friend. its true I have made mistakes in the past. As we know no one is infallible. With experience, increased knowledge and a willingness to learn from ones mistakes. The errors become fewer in number. Until they get to be infrequent or indeed extremely rare. But we are dealing with inexactitudes when we are stalking wild deer. But at least we only have ourselves to blame and not the dog.
  9. gerfalcon
    Gentlemen Sorry to but in but may I just add a line or two to your discussion. "On the point of hunting deer with hounds, be they long dogs or scent hounds, do you not feel that it is a more natural means of managing a wild population than shooting? I understand that there is 'usually' alot of thought that goes into which beasts to cull but surely man can not really know if that particular animal was the 'fittest' as it would in the natural world hunted by a natural predator?" The natural aspect of dogs hunting deer is almost negligible in our modern, man made and managed, and crow
  10. gerfalcon
    In the main that really is not true, yes you have had idiots over the years running dogs which are not up to the job on bigger species and caused suffering, but no more than some of the stalkers/shooters who don't have a clue with miss placed shots and leaving runners out to die a miserable slow death. I think you really are showing your lack of knowledge and as for siding with the LACS, that disgusts me and most other TRUE hunters I am sure. :hmm: Sirius I can assure my knowledge of the subject matter is quite extensive. Unlike some I am not blinded to the truth due to some prede
  11. gerfalcon
    What lies would they happen to be? Unless of course the Burn inquiry did look at fishing Still waiting for your reply to this one. I accept that it may be difficult for you to answer. But have a go never the less. That's a bold claim. Especially without any collaborative evidnece to support it. Well, its a well known FACT that the main MP's pushing for a ban were on the payroll of the Animal rights. gerfalcon, are you sure you're on the correct site matey? You sound more like our opponents than our opponents do..... By MP's I take it you mean MP sin
  12. gerfalcon
    I wouldn't go as far as saying you were of a fixed opinion Simon. No, neither would i But I'm sure there are many that would.
  13. gerfalcon
    That's a bold claim. Especially without any collaborative evidnece to support it.
  14. gerfalcon
    I wouldn't go as far as saying you were of a fixed opinion Simon.
  15. gerfalcon
    What lies would they happen to be? Unless of course the Burn inquiry did look at fishing
  16. gerfalcon
    I think you find that Lord Burns only supported the hunts not the coursers. Unlike some I do, do my research. The inquiry findings did have an impact on the vote, some in a positive way some in a negative way. Did I say savaged? I said I have witnessed the results of deer being coursed and the injuries caused. As for shit being talked.................. I leave that to others. Perhaps you could write a book about it? Yes it is illegal ad some look back to history whilst other persist. But not for long.aye!
  17. gerfalcon
    I think you'll find that it was Lord Burns and his fellow inquiry committee members. Appointed by Jack Straw in Dec1999. If you care to do some research the inquiries remitted only covered Hunting with Dogs and fishing was not part of that remit. As to what the future hold I have no idea I am neither physic nor a practitioner of Tarot cards. I suggest that if you can predict the future we share the next lottery roll over numbers. Ahh, when you dont like a debate, use sarcasm As you know the committee was based with a biased viewpoint, i dont need to do research, already done it. It wa
  18. gerfalcon
    That's the great thing about free society. No ones forced to toe the party line. And everyone opinion counts as much as the next.
  19. gerfalcon
    Wounds to flanks,haunches, necks, and faces. Then i believe you and would say there are bad apples in all fieldsports, but I have also seen horrible wounds on deer that have not been followed up Everyone has to decide upon their moral and ethical POV. Hopefully based upon ultimate respect for their quarry. If the scales fall as they have on the side of one particular method of control as they have in regards to deer. Due to clear and concise understanding of the facts rather than the fantasy. Of curse those that support that view and understand the reasons why that view prevailed
  20. gerfalcon
    I think you'll find that it was Lord Burns and his fellow inquiry committee members. Appointed by Jack Straw in Dec1999. If you care to do some research the inquiries remitted only covered Hunting with Dogs and fishing was not part of that remit. As to what the future hold I have no idea I am neither physic nor a practitioner of Tarot cards. I suggest that if you can predict the future we share the next lottery roll over numbers. It was not simply I or the anti hunting organisations that decided that coursing deer was a bad apple activity. I refuse to give it any form of credence by grant
  21. gerfalcon
    The law states the following For roe deer the bullet must weigh at least 50 grains plus have a minimum muzzle velocity of 2,450 feet per second along with a minimum muzzle energy of 1,000 foot pounds.
  22. gerfalcon
    Thanks.
  23. gerfalcon
    Errr I think you find the majority still hold the same view they held back in 2004. Bearing in mind that field sports are still minority sports here in the UK. I think we'll also have to accept that this is a minority view forum simple because of the general theme of the web site itself. Seriously I'm not on a wind up. Unless expressing a POV is considered to be that. What do I expect to achieve? Who knows? How about enlightenment of the unbiased.
  24. gerfalcon
    Wounds to flanks,haunches, necks, and faces. Everyone has to decide upon their moral and ethical POV. Hopefully based upon ultimate respect for their quarry. If the scales fall as they have on the side of one particular method of control as they have in regards to deer. Due to clear and concise understanding of the facts rather than the fantasy. Of curse those that support that view and understand the reasons why that view prevailed will promote it as the only viable means of control. Would you expect them to do otherwise inorder simply to present a united front to the stacked opposition
  25. gerfalcon
    Simon You've been a bit quick on the draw regarding answering questions. But I'll try to catch up. I agree in modern western society we choose to hunt. Yes some would argue that all hunting has an element of cruelty. "if you choose to shoot its a guarenteed fact that your first shot will not kill instantly, its impossible." define instantly and impossible. If by instant you mean the turning off of all brain function then I agree. If by instant you mean the removal of all blood supply to the brain the by inhibiting cognitive function the I disagree that is not impossible. To claim a d
×
×
  • Create New...