pellet lodged

[chimp 299]

what the hell has he done apart from put over a f*****g good argument and defending his views and you want to pull the plug on him , give your head a wobble ffs

[gerfalcon 13]

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?

 

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.

[gerfalcon 13]

what the hell has he done apart from put over a f*****g good argument and defending his views and you want to pull the plug on him , give your head a wobble ffs

 

Thanks.

[Lab 10,979]

what the hell has he done apart from put over a f*****g good argument and defending his views and you want to pull the plug on him , give your head a wobble ffs

An anti could put over a very good argument too if they liked, still wouldn't want them here!!! If you can't see how much a shit stirrer he is then your not as bright as I thought!!

[Simoman 110]

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.

 

Ok, first of all i would class an istantaneous death as brain function, many animals will be mortally wounded and die very shortly afterwards, so although as reliable a shot i would say the deer isn't killed instantly, although its deffinately a kill shot, so perhaps the animal suffers a degree of suffering, if only for a short time?? I can honestly say hand on heart that prior to the hunting act the deer i saw run (roe) either got away without the dog making contact or they were caught, but i also dont believe this is the case 100% of the time, perhaps those who used cruel methods, although this is the same as an irresponsible shooter. I have seen wounded deer, and there have been a few cases of irresponsible shooters taking poor head shots are mutilating the deer. So i would say in both cases the onus was on the hunter to be responsible

 

"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.

 

As i previously mentioned, quite possible with a gun, and perhaps with a dog

 

"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.

 

Yes, they may move off, but do they move because they are stressed

 

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

 

Hopefully i have given you MY opinion of instant

 

"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?

 

But who decided it was no longer justifiable? The same people who decided that hunting hares, foxes, squirrels, mink? Do they really believe shooting and fishing are acceptable, i very mych doubt it and im sure in the future they will be targeted. You may decide, as did the anti hunting organisations that some sports are a "bad apple", but do we agree banning air weapons is justified as a few idiots shoot cats? Or agree shooting should be sacrificed if next weeks headlines show a badly deformed doe due to mis-placed bullet?

[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?

 

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.

 

I wouldnt call myself biased. I have seen and done both methods, and both can, when done well and properly, be humane and efficient methods of control. On the otherside of the coin if carried out without due care both can cause suffering. I dont doubt you have seen cases which have coloured your perception, we can all troll out stories to suit our points of view, my point of view is that humane control depends less upon the method and more upon the attitude and competance of the individual hunter. There are inept and callous people involved in every arm of field sports but it is in all our interests not to fight amongst ourselves but to ensure that these people dont become the public face of our sport which they have a habit of doing through the media.

 

Chimp - I think you'll find this guy has been banned before for creating arguments for his own entertainment. If its not Greek Phil then fair enough, everyone is entitled to a point of view, if it is he should be gone as he does nothing but create trouble.

[Simoman 110]

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.

 

 

 

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 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`.

 

I agree we all have individual moral and ethical viewpoints, and i agree 100%, we should respect our quarry. And i base my own opinion on facts and what i have seen, not heresay like some of the anti viewpoints. You mention supporting your chosen method of hunting over another, and i guess thats human nature, but i think its also feasable to understand other methods (even if they are now historical). What i would expect is for all advocates of fieldsports to stick together when facing something as large as the hunting act was, it fine having a different opinion on here, but far too many hunters are too quick to decry another method and feed it to the dogs, purely so they can keep their own way of hunting

[Simoman 110]

what the hell has he done apart from put over a f*****g good argument and defending his views and you want to pull the plug on him , give your head a wobble ffs

 

I agree, the forum is about debate, i would rather have a debate than a "show us your blah x thread", as long as members dont join JUST to try and be argumentative, which happens a lot in all forums on the board

[gerfalcon 13]

But who decided it was no longer justifiable? The same people who decided that hunting hares, foxes, squirrels, mink? Do they really believe shooting and fishing are acceptable, i very mych doubt it and im sure in the future they will be targeted. You may decide, as did the anti hunting organisations that some sports are a "bad apple", but do we agree banning air weapons is justified as a few idiots shoot cats? Or agree shooting should be sacrificed if next weeks headlines show a badly deformed doe due to mis-placed bullet?

 

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 granting it the association with sport. Attempting to draw a direct comparison between the banning coursing of deer and the misuse of air weapons is tenuous and stretching the point. However I do in part agree that there is a need for improved legslation in regards to air rifles. That improvement does not include their banning however.. No I don't agree with your last clutch at the straws.

[Tyla 3,179]

We'll have to agree to disagree. Luckily your opinion carries about as much weight with me as mine does with you. I stiil reckon your GP on a wind up though.

Edited November 17, 2011 by Tyla

[Simoman 110]

But who decided it was no longer justifiable? The same people who decided that hunting hares, foxes, squirrels, mink? Do they really believe shooting and fishing are acceptable, i very mych doubt it and im sure in the future they will be targeted. You may decide, as did the anti hunting organisations that some sports are a "bad apple", but do we agree banning air weapons is justified as a few idiots shoot cats? Or agree shooting should be sacrificed if next weeks headlines show a badly deformed doe due to mis-placed bullet?

 

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 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 granting it the association with sport. Attempting to draw a direct comparison between the banning coursing of deer and the misuse of air weapons is tenuous and stretching the point. However I do in part agree that there is a need for improved legslation in regards to air rifles. That improvement does not include their banning however.. No I don't agree with your last clutch at the straws.

 

I dont need to clutch at straws, its irrelavent now as its banned, but i disagree with your view and ethos behind it, so we can agree to disagree.

[J Darcy 5,871]

But who decided it was no longer justifiable? The same people who decided that hunting hares, foxes, squirrels, mink? Do they really believe shooting and fishing are acceptable, i very mych doubt it and im sure in the future they will be targeted. You may decide, as did the anti hunting organisations that some sports are a "bad apple", but do we agree banning air weapons is justified as a few idiots shoot cats? Or agree shooting should be sacrificed if next weeks headlines show a badly deformed doe due to mis-placed bullet?

 

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 granting it the association with sport. Attempting to draw a direct comparison between the banning coursing of deer and the misuse of air weapons is tenuous and stretching the point. However I do in part agree that there is a need for improved legslation in regards to air rifles. That improvement does not include their banning however.. No I don't agree with your last clutch at the straws.

 

Well, i think you might find that Lord Burns came out in the dog man's favour......so you do your research first old chap... mI might know an ickle bit more about it than you.,....

Its illegal now NOT because of a government enquiry, but because of a vote.

 

and as for you finding deer that have been savaged!!!! If you knew much about the game you'd understand what utter $hit your talking......

 

 

But, as it is, its all illegal nowadays, we can only look back in history at it......

 

 

 

edited to add.....the topic starter.....WTF!! can we really be expected to believe that this roe had been unlucky enough to be hit by FOUR airgun pellets at different occasions!!!! Christ almighty, what as her middle name, ? Lucky? Its the biggest load of crap i've heard for a while!!!

[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.

 

 

 

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 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`.

 

I agree we all have individual moral and ethical viewpoints, and i agree 100%, we should respect our quarry. And i base my own opinion on facts and what i have seen, not heresay like some of the anti viewpoints. You mention supporting your chosen method of hunting over another, and i guess thats human nature, but i think its also feasable to understand other methods (even if they are now historical). What i would expect is for all advocates of fieldsports to stick together when facing something as large as the hunting act was, it fine having a different opinion on here, but far too many hunters are too quick to decry another method and feed it to the dogs, purely so they can keep their own way of hunting

 

"And i base my own opinion on facts" What "facts might they be?

 

"but i think its also feasable to understand other methods" Believe me when I state that I understand all methods. Hence my POV. Unlike some I am not blinded by dogma, romanticism, prejudice, snobbery, feelings for oppression, or feeling that I'm being hard done by.

 

"What i would expect is for all advocates of fieldsports to stick together when facing something as large as the hunting act was, it fine having a different opinion on here, but far too many hunters are too quick to decry another method and feed it to the dogs, purely so they can keep their own way of hunting"

 

Unfortunately we don't live in a utopian world, perhaps that should be fortunately. As I said realistically what would you expect them to do, other than toss out the unjustifiable bad apples. When your sinking under the onslaught of the waves you lighten the boat of any thing that can no longer justify its place on the ships cargo list. If that meant dropping a few hard core dog men over the side...... well History shows there weren't many who argued against the decision. No great loss some would claim. Have events and results proven them correct ................?

Edited November 17, 2011 by gerfalcon

[gerfalcon 13]

We'll have to agree to disagree. Luckily your opinion carries about as much weight with me as mine does with you. I stiil reckon your GP on a wind up though.

 

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.

[J Darcy 5,871]

We'll have to agree to disagree. Luckily your opinion carries about as much weight with me as mine does with you. I stiil reckon your GP on a wind up though.

 

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.

 

 

No, the only person who's opinion matters is the person who's paying the members of parliament....