pellet lodged

[Caprelous 217]

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.

 

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 crowded countryside. Wolves hunting Elk in Yellowstone natural perhaps but lurchers coursing deer in the UK. Not on your nelly!

 

 

 

A point I totally agree with you on ,being on the receiving end and seeing the results of lurchers running against deer and by having to dispose of the carcass and sometimes having to dispatch personally wounded deer, that have been dragged down by poachers and left mortally injured , In all honesty I really cant come to any other point of view other than agree with you.

 

 

The SW England Stag hounds packs endeavour to be as selective as they possibly can. But even that process in not 100%. Despite harbourers often spending days locating and watching for selectable deer. Personally I don't believe selective exists in a lurchers vocablorary.

 

"I will however admit, there does seem to be alot higher percentage of tossers with lurchers than guns." Can't argue against that one.

 

Thank you both.

Edited November 18, 2011 by Caprelous

[Caprelous 217]

I'd like to congratulate capreleous and born hunter for having a most unusual discussion on here, one where two views differ and yet the discussion does not end in personal insults and ineffective ridicule, it rather highlights gerfalcon's (GP) inability to hold an adult discussion.

 

I think it all comes down to the individual circumstances, my experience is that a clean kill can be made on the smaller deer species with a good lurcher as well as a rifle. Equally both can end in an inhumane mess if the shot is botched or the dog is not up to the task. I cannot speak for the larger species or hound packs as I have no first hand experience of them.

 

Its all rather theoretical now anyway as coursing is illegal and likely to remain so. Its the gleeful attitude some members take when rubbing the doglads noses in the ban that irritates me, which is annoying as I suspect that is the whole purpose of it!

 

Thanks for the personal positive remark , even though my views are sometimes very different to other postees on the forum i do try to keep my responses civil and as friendly as possible and i do expect the same courtesy .

I should add however your views later in your post, I dont agree with, but I like yourself are entitled to your beliefs and ideals, I am not for one moment saying your beliefs are wrong or mine are right, each of us has to live with the beliefs and actions we take, its all a matter of conscience and all i can say is my conscience in regard to by beliefs are clear and know doubt you feel the same .

 

We have both kept these exchanges free from abuse and if nothing else its a positive outcome to differences

 

Regards

Stuart

Edited November 18, 2011 by Caprelous

[masmiffy 82]

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.

 

Oh more air required here it think

[Tyla 3,179]

I'd like to congratulate capreleous and born hunter for having a most unusual discussion on here, one where two views differ and yet the discussion does not end in personal insults and ineffective ridicule, it rather highlights gerfalcon's (GP) inability to hold an adult discussion.

 

I think it all comes down to the individual circumstances, my experience is that a clean kill can be made on the smaller deer species with a good lurcher as well as a rifle. Equally both can end in an inhumane mess if the shot is botched or the dog is not up to the task. I cannot speak for the larger species or hound packs as I have no first hand experience of them.

 

Its all rather theoretical now anyway as coursing is illegal and likely to remain so. Its the gleeful attitude some members take when rubbing the doglads noses in the ban that irritates me, which is annoying as I suspect that is the whole purpose of it!

 

Thanks for the personal positive remark , even though my views are sometimes very different to other postees on the forum i do try to keep my responses civil and as friendly as possible and i do expect the same courtesy .

I should add however your views later in your post, I dont agree with, but I like yourself are entitled to your beliefs and ideals, I am not for one moment saying your beliefs are wrong or mine are right, each of us has to live with the beliefs and actions we take, its all a matter of conscience and all i can say is my conscience in regard to by beliefs are clear and know doubt you feel the same .

 

We have both kept these exchanges free from abuse and if nothing else its a positive outcome to differences

 

Regards

Stuart

 

Just as it should be. It would be a boring world if everyone thought the same, it would also be a boring world if no one was able to accept anothers right to a different opinion. Live and let live. The only thing anyone should really take heed of is their own moral compass and let others do the same. ATB

Edited November 18, 2011 by Tyla

[tegater 789]

Getting back to the original post, I think it is unfair to put a post up that puts air gunners in a bad light, when we all know there are minorities in all sportsmen that ruin the good name of the sport. The chances are, the yobs responsible for the pellets, are not sporting shooters at all.

I am not a dog man, but I do hunt with the hound. How did dog men get dragged into this one! Let's get real.

[gerfalcon 13]

I'd like to congratulate capreleous and born hunter for having a most unusual discussion on here, one where two views differ and yet the discussion does not end in personal insults and ineffective ridicule, it rather highlights gerfalcon's (GP) inability to hold an adult discussion.

 

I think it all comes down to the individual circumstances, my experience is that a clean kill can be made on the smaller deer species with a good lurcher as well as a rifle. Equally both can end in an inhumane mess if the shot is botched or the dog is not up to the task. I cannot speak for the larger species or hound packs as I have no first hand experience of them.

 

Its all rather theoretical now anyway as coursing is illegal and likely to remain so. Its the gleeful attitude some members take when rubbing the doglads noses in the ban that irritates me, which is annoying as I suspect that is the whole purpose of it!

 

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 distress. This can only ever and will only ever be delivered by a well placed high velocity bullet. No dog is a fast as a bullet or kills as quickly as a bullet can.

 

I take no glee in rubbing anyones nose in the fact that coursing deer is banned. I am appreciative of the fact that it is and that it will remain so. The fact that they find being reminded of the fact and the reason behind that fact annoying is nothing to do with me. As the adage goes "don't shoot the messenger".At the end of the day they had their chance to put their case decisively, effectively and in as strong a positive light as possible..............................and they blew it! Why, because they were trying to defend in indefensible. everyone knew it, even the hunts their closest allies realised it was a lost cause as far back as 1999 Many had already written them off a lot earlier.

 

If I could I would agree with you, but I can't. As by dong so would make us both wrong.

 

Thanks for taking the time to read and reply. Thats what debate and discussion is all about. With out them, agreement and acceptance just wouldn't happen.

 

Enough said.

[bunnybasher69 56]

Getting back to the original post, I think it is unfair to put a post up that puts air gunners in a bad light, when we all know there are minorities in all sportsmen that ruin the good name of the sport. The chances are, the yobs responsible for the pellets, are not sporting shooters at all.

I am not a dog man, but I do hunt with the hound. How did dog men get dragged into this one! Let's get real.

 

That's very true there are others that give your group a bad name and there seems to be a consensus that there are more scum dogmen than gunmen. I couldn't know if that was the case. What I do know is if something wrong is done by a dogman it's highly publised.

 

It looks like gerfalcon brought it up in a possitve light that there is a ban on coursing deer.

[gerfalcon 13]

That's very true there are others that give your group a bad name and there seems to be a consensus that there are more scum dogmen than gunmen. I couldn't know if that was the case. What I do know is if something wrong is done by a dogman it's highly publised.

 

It looks like gerfalcon brought it up in a possitve light that there is a ban on coursing deer.

 

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 perceived, have the effect of tarring all through association, actual or perceived, with the same brush. I'm sure we can all recall that classic western movie line "the only good injun is a dead injun !"

 

Is this wide spread general antipathy well founded?......... Opinions will differ on here. None of which matters in the slightest. What matters is this antipathy is there, its deep rooted and its growing. Now that doesn't bother me, but I'm sure it bothers a good number of this forums membership. Especially the law abiding, ones.

 

Are there good dogmen? Yes of course, I know or have known a few of them. That's why I don't tar all with the same brush.

 

You are correct I do view the Hunting Act's banning of deer coursing in a positive light. In part for the reason that I have stated.

Edited November 19, 2011 by gerfalcon

[Squirrel_Basher 17,100]

Any man that hunts needs not answer to any other man on the ethics of his chosen sport .The lurcher versus gun debate has gone on for years before any of you chose to champion the facts and will go on long after you are gone .If a man chooses either then its fine by me .Shows a great deal of bigotry in condemning anything you dont fully understand and unless you partake in something then your views are of little concern to those who have .The right to speak out immediately looses weight the moment the reader realises this .

Just because a law is passed does not mean its justified only that those with the power to do so can leave their personal feelings on paper as a another blight on this once great country .

Written by someone who HAS done both .

[Caprelous 217]

Any man that hunts needs not answer to any other man on the ethics of his chosen sport .

 

Unfortunately if he leaves his quarry mortally injured dying in extreme pain lying in the bottom of a ditch with its throat partially ripped out and others like myself who get called out by the police to dispatch a deer thats in extreme stress covered in blood gasping for every breath then yes he does need to answer for his or their actions so i think I will have to disagree with that particular statement.

 

 

The lurcher versus gun debate has gone on for years before any of you chose to champion the facts and will go on long after you are gone .If a man chooses either then its fine by me .Shows a great deal of bigotry in condemning anything you dont fully understand and unless you partake in something then your views are of little concern to those who have .The right to speak out immediately looses weight the moment the reader realises this .

Just because a law is passed does not mean its justified only that those with the power to do so can leave their personal feelings on paper as a another blight on this once great country .

Written by someone who HAS done both .

Edited November 20, 2011 by Caprelous

[gerfalcon 13]

Unfortunately if he leaves his quarry mortally injured dying in extreme pain lying in the bottom of a ditch with its throat partially ripped out and others like myself who get called out by the police to dispatch a deer thats in extreme stress covered in blood gasping for every breath then yes he does need to answer for his or their actions so i think I will have to disagree with that particular statement.

 

Well said.

 

To claim no one is answerable, is not only naive, its bordering on the ridiculous. Just as assuming that someone condemns an activity due to an assumed lack of understanding. Just as claiming "unless you partake in something then your views are of little concern to those who have " is equally naive and ridiculous. For example I have never drunk my own pee, but implicitly understand that its wrong and not something I would ever wish to do.

 

Such weak and trivial attempts at justifying the unjustifiable have always been certain types stocking trade.

 

Just as shooting a roe doe over the boundary, posting a photo of the act on the internet and then denying the true location, then panicing and deleting the OP, only to realise that guys have already downloaded and saved the post. Is naive and ridiculous.

[Caprelous 217]

I have to say not all those who run dogs are guilty of such an act but unfortunately for others there seems to be an attitude that poaching deer using dogs during the hours of darkness , on land they dont have permission to be on is an acceptable thing to do.

 

First and foremost its in non compliance of the law , causing suffering in the manner I describe in my post above. I think any true sportsman irrespective of the legal situation cannot but agree other than such actions are unacceptable, in my view any one who champions there cause otherwise cannot bring the hunting/stalking/shooting fraternity into a favorable light in any way shape or form. We all have views and consciences and personally I am somewhat at odds to those actions that cause suffering to what i see cruel.

 

Personally I do not find them acceptable.

Just my point of view of which i am entitled to,however not wishing to appear bigoted,if anyone can show me a different point of view that it is acceptable to those I hold. I am prepared to listen.

 

kind Regards

Stuart

Edited November 21, 2011 by Caprelous

[gerfalcon 13]

I have to say not all those who run dogs are guilty of such an act but unfortunately for others there seems to be an attitude that poaching deer using dogs during the hours of darkness , on land they dont have permission to be on is an acceptable thing to do.

 

First and foremost its in non compliance of the law , causing suffering in the manner I describe in my post above. I think any true sportsman irrespective of the legal situation cannot but agree other than such actions are unacceptable, in my view any one who champions there cause otherwise cannot bring the hunting/stalking/shooting fraternity into a favorable light in any way shape or form. We all have views and consciences and personally I am somewhat at odds to those actions that cause suffering to what i see cruel.

 

Personally I do not find them acceptable.

Just my point of view of which i am entitled to,however not wishing to appear bigoted,if anyone can show me a different point of view that it is acceptable to those I hold. I am prepared to listen.

 

kind Regards

Stuart

 

Stu

 

I too hold the same views. As do a great many others. Hence the wide spread and growing antipathy as I mentioned earlier.

Although for me coursing deer is totally unjustifiable be it it daylight or under cover of darkness, whether the perpetrator /s have permission to be on the land or otherwise. Although a point to be remembered is that by granting permission renders the landowner liable for prosecution under the Hunting Act 2004.

 

I like you, if anyone can point me in the direction of an alternative POV that isn't based upon inaccuracies, has some basis other than its traditional that holds up under rigorous scrutiny. I'm prepared to listen.

[khakibob 1]

Hunting deer (sambar) with hounds is one of the few huntng traditions we have down here.Tens of thousands are taken annually on public land for a licence of about 40 bucks a year with no bag limit..It disperses deer & spreads the kill across all ages & sex..

Hound hunters usually do not exclude other hunters or stalkers.

Usually the opposite,they'll invite you for a run.

Show me better game management than that?

Hounds are used not dogs.The hounds must not grab the deer just sent trail until it crosses a shooter or bails up where a shooter sneakes in & dispatches it (not that easy).

The deer are not terrified, they easily stay a couple of hundred yards ahead of the hounds,which scent trail not sight hunt.

I doubt it would be ethical on smaller species than reds or sambar,but on these species done well there is no ethical issues.

Come on down & have a run with the hounds if you doubt it.You might be wiser for the experience.

 

Cheers Khakibob

 

PS I'm a self confessed deer tragic & would not support any cruelty on these magnificent animals.

I am also a dedicated stalker,but have seen enough of hound hunting to know when done wisely it's a legitimate & ethical form of deer hunting.

It needs a strong responsible ,ethical culture,not poachers & thieves advocating its legitimacy.

I see the value, especially in herd health & dispersal & am at ease advocating for this tradition.

[Richie10 345]

This is Rasher/Greek Phil who will always bring in ethics.

 

I have had more meat damage with shooting than with a good deer dog and better success.

 

I guess a hole in your lung and drowning in your blood isn't stressful...a deer isn't stressed by a dog until it's caught.