pellet lodged

[paulus 26]

paulus you just got owned big time lol

 

i loved seeing dogs run deer but my heart is with a gun and always has been. in good old thl fashion the same old morons think they have the only right to certain animals.

only thing i know is ive never injured anything with a dog, its happened a few times with the gun and then i have to use a dog to find it given that the natural resources of the plannet we live on are dimminishing at a great rate of knotts doesnt it seem daft to be doing things this way still, when just by using a dog fit for the purpose we wouldnt need the gun,ammo,bipod,cammo gear and every other accesory on the market. thus reducing our carbon footprint, and thus saving our plannet. so as i said progress isnt always for the better

[Simoman 110]

Unfortunately for the deer we all know that's simply not true., and is one of the main reasons why it was made illegal by the Hunting Act 2004. You've got to hand it to those LACS campaigners. They get things right occasionally.

 

Still never mind aye!

 

Have you winessed it, or are you just going by propaganda distributed by the organisations you have mentioned? Trying to act pompous and belittle members only makes you appear foolish and suspect. So as i have mentioned, have you seen it in person? And do you think only riflemen have the rights to take deer? I will say that in this country its now a historical thing for me, BUT i do like your united attitude, and a hint of love for the LACS.........

[gerfalcon 13]

only thing i know is ive never injured anything with a dog, its happened a few times with the gun and then i have to use a dog to find it given that the natural resources of the plannet we live on are dimminishing at a great rate of knotts doesnt it seem daft to be doing things this way still, when just by using a dog fit for the purpose we wouldnt need the gun,ammo,bipod,cammo gear and every other accesory on the market. thus reducing our carbon footprint, and thus saving our plannet. so as i said progress isnt always for the better

 

I think you may need to reconsider your conclusions. Once you've reviewed the logic. For instance suffering is only caused by injury.......really? The clean,swift, ethical killing of deer requires that you use bipod,cammo gear and every other accesory on the market thus reducing our carbon footprint, and thus saving our plannet........... how do you come to that conclusion?

 

I'm not being pedantic but by saying "only thing i know is ive never injured anything with a dog", indicates only one of two things. Like the hunter who says he never misses a shot. He's either not done very much shooting or he's names William Liar. I suspect its the former.

 

Any way! I've enjoyed our well mannered exchange of views and I wish you all the best.

[Simoman 110]

only thing i know is ive never injured anything with a dog, its happened a few times with the gun and then i have to use a dog to find it given that the natural resources of the plannet we live on are dimminishing at a great rate of knotts doesnt it seem daft to be doing things this way still, when just by using a dog fit for the purpose we wouldnt need the gun,ammo,bipod,cammo gear and every other accesory on the market. thus reducing our carbon footprint, and thus saving our plannet. so as i said progress isnt always for the better

 

I think you may need to reconsider your conclusions. Once you've reviewed the logic. For instance suffering is only caused by injury.......really? The clean,swift, ethical killing of deer requires that you use bipod,cammo gear and every other accesory on the market thus reducing our carbon footprint, and thus saving our plannet........... how do you come to that conclusion?

 

I'm not being pedantic but by saying "only thing i know is ive never injured anything with a dog", indicates only one of two things. Like the hunter who says he never misses a shot. He's either not done very much shooting or he's names William Liar. I suspect its the former.

 

Any way! I've enjoyed our well mannered exchange of views and I wish you all the best.

 

You didn't respond to my original questions but i'll try a couple more. The fact is we all CHOOSE to hunt, whether thats with a gun, dog, rod, trap or bird. It can be argued 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. And i understand what Paul is saying, a dog either catches or misses period, a bullet MAY wound and you MAY not find the animal to end its distress. Stress may be measured in different ways, you may deem a chased animal has stress during the course, but is this stress any greater than it experiences and is used to evading predators on a daily basis? Stress may be the deer that can smell a stalkter as the wind changes, or when the first shot doesn't kill straight away, even shots to the boiler room aren't always instant are they? It would be a lot more beneficial if we stuck together rather than trying to justify one method of sport over another......

[paulus 26]

The clean,swift, ethical killing of deer requires that you use bipod,cammo gear and any ethical stalker worth his salt wouldnt be with out a dog. for the occasions when even with all his gear that has been made from raw materials taken from the planet then flew around the world, he misses that spot that would result in a clean instant kill. and no i can honestly say my dog has never injured anything.

[Lab 10,979]

Unfortunately for the deer we all know that's simply not true., and is one of the main reasons why it was made illegal by the Hunting Act 2004. You've got to hand it to those LACS campaigners. They get things right occasionally.

 

Still never mind aye!

 

Have you winessed it, or are you just going by propaganda distributed by the organisations you have mentioned? Trying to act pompous and belittle members only makes you appear foolish and suspect. So as i have mentioned, have you seen it in person? And do you think only riflemen have the rights to take deer? I will say that in this country its now a historical thing for me, BUT i do like your united attitude, and a hint of love for the LACS.........

I believe this member was a member before on here and was asked to leave????

[Simoman 110]

Unfortunately for the deer we all know that's simply not true., and is one of the main reasons why it was made illegal by the Hunting Act 2004. You've got to hand it to those LACS campaigners. They get things right occasionally.

 

Still never mind aye!

 

Have you winessed it, or are you just going by propaganda distributed by the organisations you have mentioned? Trying to act pompous and belittle members only makes you appear foolish and suspect. So as i have mentioned, have you seen it in person? And do you think only riflemen have the rights to take deer? I will say that in this country its now a historical thing for me, BUT i do like your united attitude, and a hint of love for the LACS.........

I believe this member was a member before on here and was asked to leave????

 

I vaguely remember

[happydigger 13]

only thing i know is ive never injured anything with a dog, its happened a few times with the gun and then i have to use a dog to find it given that the natural resources of the plannet we live on are dimminishing at a great rate of knotts doesnt it seem daft to be doing things this way still, when just by using a dog fit for the purpose we wouldnt need the gun,ammo,bipod,cammo gear and every other accesory on the market. thus reducing our carbon footprint, and thus saving our plannet. so as i said progress isnt always for the better

 

I think you may need to reconsider your conclusions. Once you've reviewed the logic. For instance suffering is only caused by injury.......really? The clean,swift, ethical killing of deer requires that you use bipod,cammo gear and every other accesory on the market thus reducing our carbon footprint, and thus saving our plannet........... how do you come to that conclusion?

 

I'm not being pedantic but by saying "only thing i know is ive never injured anything with a dog", indicates only one of two things. Like the hunter who says he never misses a shot. He's either not done very much shooting or he's names William Liar. I suspect its the former.

 

Any way! I've enjoyed our well mannered exchange of views and I wish you all the best.

tha sounds a bit dodgy to me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Lab 10,979]

Unfortunately for the deer we all know that's simply not true., and is one of the main reasons why it was made illegal by the Hunting Act 2004. You've got to hand it to those LACS campaigners. They get things right occasionally.

 

Still never mind aye!

 

Have you winessed it, or are you just going by propaganda distributed by the organisations you have mentioned? Trying to act pompous and belittle members only makes you appear foolish and suspect. So as i have mentioned, have you seen it in person? And do you think only riflemen have the rights to take deer? I will say that in this country its now a historical thing for me, BUT i do like your united attitude, and a hint of love for the LACS.........

I believe this member was a member before on here and was asked to leave????

 

I vaguely remember

I mean I can't be 100% sure of course but my big toe is giving me jip and it's not often wrong. I like to call it the c**t-o-meter!!!

[gerfalcon 13]

Unfortunately for the deer we all know that's simply not true., and is one of the main reasons why it was made illegal by the Hunting Act 2004. You've got to hand it to those LACS campaigners. They get things right occasionally.

 

Still never mind aye!

 

Have you winessed it, or are you just going by propaganda distributed by the organisations you have mentioned? Trying to act pompous and belittle members only makes you appear foolish and suspect. So as i have mentioned, have you seen it in person? And do you think only riflemen have the rights to take deer? I will say that in this country its now a historical thing for me, BUT i do like your united attitude, and a hint of love for the LACS.........

 

Simon

 

I have personal witnessed the suffering caused to deer by coursing and I am not alone in that regard. No I'm not going by the propaganda distributed by the various anti hunting organisations. Neither am I acting pompously or trying to belittle other posters. Whether that makes me appear foolish and suspect is undoubtedly down to ones POV on the subject matter under debate. So to reiterate yes I have seen the suffering in person. Yes I believe that it should be everybodies moral imperative to ensure that when we kill any animal we endeavour to do so in the quickest and most humane manner available. Hence my dislike of the current trend in certain quarters to view live mammals and birds as nothing more than convenient targets to take long range pot shots at in order to claim membership to the 300yard, 500yard or 1000yard club.

 

I have no general or good regard for the LACS, PETA, NHSA, or any of the other anti blood sports( their term not mine) and animal rights organisations. But I give credit, where credit is due. Even if its only warranted in small amounts. As in the case with the coursing of deer. I am a strong advocate of presenting a united front. But I'm also a realist with no skewed view of history, civil liberties, facts, fiction or modern day society and ethics.

[Tyla 3,179]

Someone this far up their own arse and this desperate to cause trouble on the forum can only be ........ Greek Phil

 

Hit the button Simo before he manages to create an even bigger divide between us. For the life of me I cannot see what he gets out of it but whatever it is must really get him off. This whole attitude about owning quarry is a joke, if its not the coursing lads having a go at the shooters its stalkers having a pop at dogmen and singing LACs praises.

[Simoman 110]

Unfortunately for the deer we all know that's simply not true., and is one of the main reasons why it was made illegal by the Hunting Act 2004. You've got to hand it to those LACS campaigners. They get things right occasionally.

 

Still never mind aye!

 

Have you winessed it, or are you just going by propaganda distributed by the organisations you have mentioned? Trying to act pompous and belittle members only makes you appear foolish and suspect. So as i have mentioned, have you seen it in person? And do you think only riflemen have the rights to take deer? I will say that in this country its now a historical thing for me, BUT i do like your united attitude, and a hint of love for the LACS.........

 

Simon

 

I have personal witnessed the suffering caused to deer by coursing and I am not alone in that regard. No I'm not going by the propaganda distributed by the various anti hunting organisations. Neither am I acting pompously or trying to belittle other posters. Whether that makes me appear foolish and suspect is undoubtedly down to ones POV on the subject matter under debate. So to reiterate yes I have seen the suffering in person. Yes I believe that it should be everybodies moral imperative to ensure that when we kill any animal we endeavour to do so in the quickest and most humane manner available. Hence my dislike of the current trend in certain quarters to view live mammals and birds as nothing more than convenient targets to take long range pot shots at in order to claim membership to the 300yard, 500yard or 1000yard club.

 

I have no general or good regard for the LACS, PETA, NHSA, or any of the other anti blood sports( their term not mine) and animal rights organisations. But I give credit, where credit is due. Even if its only warranted in small amounts. As in the case with the coursing of deer. I am a strong advocate of presenting a united front. But I'm also a realist with no skewed view of history, civil liberties, facts, fiction or modern day society and ethics.

 

May i ask what the suffering you witnessed was? I think there is a possibility for ALL methods of fieldsports to be cruel if initiated by cruel people, same with shooting, practised correctly it can be a humane method of culling, whether for sport, pest control or food. I would say the same when deer coursing was a legal pastime. The problem is you have decided, as did the various organisations what constitutes an acceptable method of control and promote what you consider the correct method, as the only method. I look forward to your reply

[gerfalcon 13]

You didn't respond to my original questions but i'll try a couple more. The fact is we all CHOOSE to hunt, whether thats with a gun, dog, rod, trap or bird. It can be argued 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. And i understand what Paul is saying, a dog either catches or misses period, a bullet MAY wound and you MAY not find the animal to end its distress. Stress may be measured in different ways, you may deem a chased animal has stress during the course, but is this stress any greater than it experiences and is used to evading predators on a daily basis? Stress may be the deer that can smell a stalkter as the wind changes, or when the first shot doesn't kill straight away, even shots to the boiler room aren't always instant are they? It would be a lot more beneficial if we stuck together rather than trying to justify one method of sport over another......

 

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 dog either kills or misses is not only way to simplistic its also erroneous as you are well aware. But its a common enough claim promoted by those who advocate the coursing of deer. It doesn't make it any the less wrong.

 

"a bullet MAY wound and you MAY not find the animal to end its distress" true. But the same criticism can be laid at the door of dogs.

 

"Stress may be the deer that can smell a stalkter as the wind changes" thats why they move off. Minimal stress in a natural environment.

 

"even shots to the boiler room aren't always instant are they" Again define instant. Adreniline can cause a number of bodily reactions.

 

"It would be a lot more beneficial if we stuck together rather than trying to justify one method of sport over another" It would.But when one sport becomes no longer "justifiable" and is viewed by the majority as detrimental to the good of the whole.What course of action would you advocate? Close ranks and suffer the consequences regardless of the cost to the majority or accept that times have come to remove the bad apple from the barrel?

[Tyla 3,179]

Im not totally sure you are in such a majority as you believe, especially on here. Give up with the wind up its just counter productive, what are you actually trying to acheive?

[gerfalcon 13]

May i ask what the suffering you witnessed was? I think there is a possibility for ALL methods of fieldsports to be cruel if initiated by cruel people, same with shooting, practised correctly it can be a humane method of culling, whether for sport, pest control or food. I would say the same when deer coursing was a legal pastime. The problem is you have decided, as did the various organisations what constitutes an acceptable method of control and promote what you consider the correct method, as the only method. I look forward to your reply

 

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 to the concept of hunting per se`.