pellet lodged

[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.

 

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.

 

True it is irrelevant, to a degree. A few more convictions will make it even more irrelevant. My views and my ethos are based firmly on realism, acceptance of the facts and the indisputable evidence.

 

Thanks for the exchange of views.

[J Darcy 5,871]

If you work on the facts, then why have you told downright lies about the findings of the Burns report.....

[Simoman 110]

Wasn't really an exchange of views was it, purely one member with a fixed opinion......

[gerfalcon 13]

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......

 

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!

[gerfalcon 13]

If you work on the facts, then why have you told downright lies about the findings of the Burns report.....

 

What lies would they happen to be? Unless of course the Burn inquiry did look at fishing

[gerfalcon 13]

Wasn't really an exchange of views was it, purely one member with a fixed opinion......

 

I wouldn't go as far as saying you were of a fixed opinion Simon.

[Born Hunter 17,763]

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......

 

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!

 

As I have witnessed countless shots taken at quarry with an unsuitable firearm, hell this thread is an example, I guess that means all you cowboys are cruel b*****ds then, just like all the dogmen....

 

I suppose you have never caused suffering to a hunted beast?

[Simoman 110]

Wasn't really an exchange of views was it, purely one member with a fixed opinion......

 

I wouldn't go as far as saying you were of a fixed opinion Simon.

 

No, neither would i

[gerfalcon 13]

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

 

That's a bold claim. Especially without any collaborative evidnece to support it.

[gerfalcon 13]

Wasn't really an exchange of views was it, purely one member with a fixed opinion......

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.

[J Darcy 5,871]

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

 

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.....

[Caprelous 217]

I have been following this debate with interest and healthy discussion and differences of opinions are always going to exist, especially on such a heated topic such as this, I have to admit I havent witnessed personally organised deer hounds where they run down to exhaustion an animal such as those that were deployed on Exmoor and Dartmoor etc, obviously before the ban.

 

It appeared to me in the films and videos at the time of these hunts that these animals did suffer in some cases after being brought down the pack would rip out the animals throat and other areas of the beast.

 

in my view and I repeat the emphasis MY View of which like you I am entitled to, most certainly did not present a picture to the non hunting world to be other than gory.

 

Its also common knowledge that the venison from the hunt would be only fit to feed the dogs and certainly would be inedible for human consumption due to the high presence of toxins in the animals blood stream and muscle tissue thats a scientific fact any animal that is stressed even for short periods of time will produce these toxins within their tissue , running dogs against deer obviously stresses the animal highly.

 

Even stalking an animal with a rifle can raise these levels but of a less degree .

 

I have witnessed the effects of poachers who have run long dogs during the hours of darkness against the smaller species of deer where before they can collect there spoils of chase ,they have been interrupted leaving the carcass in a ditch with teeth marks torn haunches and throat wounds.

 

All in all not a nice sight to see I have a point of view that each person is entitled to follow their chosen sport but personally running dogs against animals such as deer leaves me with a bitter taste in my mouth.

And Gentleman I am not an anti blood supporter or a member of the LACS but I am a Life Member of BASC and support their ideals.

 

Thanks for listening to my point of view.

 

Stuart

[mangy1983 51]

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!!!

 

I think he may have meant locations of the the body J Darcy not occasions but only the OP can verify this???

 

cheers Callum

[Sirius 1,391]

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!

 

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:

[Born Hunter 17,763]

I have been following this debate with interest and healthy discussion and differences of opinions are always going to exist, especially on such a heated topic such as this, I have to admit I havent witnessed personally organised deer hounds where they run down to exhaustion an animal such as those that were deployed on Exmoor and Dartmoor etc, obviously before the ban.

 

It appeared to me in the films and videos at the time of these hunts that these animals did suffer in some cases after being brought down the pack would rip out the animals throat and other areas of the beast.

 

in my view and I repeat the emphasis MY View of which like you I am entitled to, most certainly did not present a picture to the non hunting world to be other than gory.

 

Its also common knowledge that the venison from the hunt would be only fit to feed the dogs and certainly would be inedible for human consumption due to the high presence of toxins in the animals blood stream and muscle tissue thats a scientific fact any animal that is stressed even for short periods of time will produce these toxins within their tissue , running dogs against deer obviously stresses the animal highly.

 

Even stalking an animal with a rifle can raise these levels but of a less degree .

 

I have witnessed the effects of poachers who have run long dogs during the hours of darkness against the smaller species of deer where before they can collect there spoils of chase ,they have been interrupted leaving the carcass in a ditch with teeth marks torn haunches and throat wounds.

 

All in all not a nice sight to see I have a point of view that each person is entitled to follow their chosen sport but personally running dogs against animals such as deer leaves me with a bitter taste in my mouth.

And Gentleman I am not an anti blood supporter or a member of the LACS but I am a Life Member of BASC and support their ideals.

 

Thanks for listening to my point of view.

 

Stuart

 

Good and sensible post Stuart. 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?

 

Also on the subject of irresponsibility within the dog world and the consiquencial unnecessary suffer (deer chewed up left in ditches etc), this can be seen just as bad within the shooting world. Deer with bird shot in them, miss placed bullets etc, it's hardly uncommon. As in both sports there are idiots and the real deal professionals. I will however admit, there does seem to be alot higher percentage of tossers with lurchers than guns.