sporting game

[wull]

The shooting of any defenceless animal is poor form. .

well it would actually be good form to shoot a defenceless animal.i'd expect poor form to result in a missed bird,probably slightly behind from not picking up the target early enough and following it with a slight lead.

 

[chris661]

What?? Can you read that again and tell me that you meant to write that?? Are you saying that someone created them in a lab with the sole purpose of shooting them?? If you are then Darwin's theory goes right out of the window.

The shooting of any defenceless animal is poor form. The only time an animal should be shot is if it's in pain and can't be saved.

No they are notoriously bad mothers and would rather leg it then fight for their chicks.

Do you eat meat?

 

[Liverbirdie]

I just think that if you're going to use the words 'sporting' and 'game' then it means that both sides have an equal chance. I fear that one side is heavily biased in this contest! That is neither sporting or game.

What you partake in is the aerial equivalent of badger baiting.

Or watching the SPL.

 

[Snelly]

My view is that all God's creatures have a place in the world. For game species, that place is adjacent to the roast potatoes.


Wull - I am with you on this and shoot regularly. Mostly rough shooting but some driven. Also have stalking rifles for harvesting venison/murdering Bambi and fox control on several farms and estates.

In addition, I have ferrets and a lurcher so rabbiting is a family activity for us most weekends through the autumn and winter.

I don't normally enter into debates on this subject with those (usually urban, Tesco-shopping omnivores!) who are anti-fieldsports as invariably, their views are totally entrenched and any logical argument is ignored in favour of an emotive, often hysterical response rendering the debate pointless. However in this instance, the bunny hugging replies on this thread are so simple minded, ignorant, ill-informed and frankly prejudiced that I am prepared to make an exception. So fire away and tell me how evil I am and I will respond and correct your misinformed view with a balanced, lucid argument.

Before you do though, you should note that as context, I am very, very keen on animal welfare. I won't eat meat that hasn't come from an animal that has lived a decent life. Nor do I eat eggs that haven't come from my or my friend's chickens. I am very particular about knowing where my food comes from and usually buy straight from friend's farms. The reason I say this is that those with differing views to mine on this thread are most likely less fussy about this. It would not surprise me to hear that those who think that shooting a pheasant is the equivalent of badger baiting are the very same people who buy cheap meat from Tesco's or go to McDonalds. If so, any argument put forward by them is hypocritical, baseless and flawed so not really worth responding to. That is not to say I won't argue the toss though....

Anyway, looking forward to hearing the opposing views..........


Snelly.

 

[Snelly]

I'll rephrase. They are not native to the UK. They only exist and are prevalent in such numbers to be shot at. Without shooting (sport) they would not exist .... in the UK. They are the friesian cow of the bird world..

I agree with you in the main although you are not quite right. In fact, the pheasant was introduced by the Romans (as a food species) and is effectively indigenous now with a wild, self-sustaining, non-migratory population.

You are quite correct to say that they would not exist in the numbers that they do without driven shooting though. Similarly for French Partridge. Not so the English Partridge which has effectively been saved from extinction by the shooting community.

 

[chris661]

I agree with you in the main although you are not quite right. In fact, the pheasant was introduced by the Romans (as a food species) and is effectively indigenous now with a wild, self-sustaining, non-migratory population.

You are quite correct to say that they would not exist in the numbers that they do without driven shooting though. Similarly for French Partridge. Not so the English Partridge which has effectively been saved from extinction by the shooting community.

Over by here almost every gun club will buy 200 or 300 young birds and release them at the appropriate time, now I accept that a number will fall to natural predators but from the evidence I have seen if it wasn't for the gun clubs/shoots there would be virtually no pheasants as, I said earlier, the are notoriously bad at caring for their young. Caring for them is a bit of a ball ache as well as they really are pretty stupid.

The do however taste lovely.

 

[Snelly]

Over by here almost every gun club will buy 200 or 300 young birds and release them at the appropriate time, now I accept that a number will fall to natural predators but from the evidence I have seen if it wasn't for the gun clubs/shoots there would be virtually no pheasants as, I said earlier, the are notoriously bad at caring for their young. Caring for them is a bit of a ball ache as well as they really are pretty stupid.

The do however taste lovely.

1. Yes they taste great..
2. Shoots, even small ones, buy a lot more than 300 poults.
3. A released bird is quite stupid yes. It is a young animal with little life experience so can't learn how to survive all that well in the time it has had on earth. That isn't the same as a wild bird and there are plenty of wild pheasants. They are smart, careful and just as good as other birds at caring for chicks. Without shooting, there would still be plenty of pheasants but not anything like as many. And they would be smarter! Same animal of course, just older, wiser and bred naturally in the wild.

PS - I am pretty well informed on this as have had several part time gamekeeping jobs on shoots of varying sizes. One was very big in terms of acreage and released no birds, just nurtured the wiild population and controlled predators.

 

[chris661]

1. Yes they taste great..
2. Shoots, even small ones, buy a lot more than 300 poults.
3. A released bird is quite stupid yes. It is a very young animal with little life experience so can't learn how to survive all that well. That isn't the same as a wild bird and there are plenty of wild pheasants. They are smart, careful and just as good as other birds at caring for chicks. Without shooting, there would still be plenty of pheasants but not anything like as many. And they would be smarter! Same animal of course, just older, wiser and bred naturally in the wild.

I am agreeing with you.

With regards to the 300 thing my local gun club has roughly 15 members and I would imagine the rest are broadly similar and every townland/village will have a gun club.

 

[wull]

My view is that all God's creatures have a place in the world. For game species, that place is adjacent to the roast potatoes.


Wull - I am with you on this and shoot regularly. Mostly rough shooting but some driven. Also have stalking rifles for harvesting venison/murdering Bambi and fox control on several farms and estates.

In addition, I have ferrets and a lurcher so rabbiting is a family activity for us most weekends through the autumn and winter.

I don't normally enter into debates on this subject with those (usually urban, Tesco-shopping omnivores!) who are anti-fieldsports as invariably, their views are totally entrenched and any logical argument is ignored in favour of an emotive, often hysterical response rendering the debate pointless. However in this instance, the bunny hugging replies on this thread are so simple minded, ignorant, ill-informed and frankly prejudiced that I am prepared to make an exception. So fire away and tell me how evil I am and I will respond and correct your misinformed view with a balanced, lucid argument.

Before you do though, you should note that as context, I am very, very keen on animal welfare. I won't eat meat that hasn't come from an animal that has lived a decent life. Nor do I eat eggs that haven't come from my or my friend's chickens. I am very particular about knowing where my food comes from and usually buy straight from friend's farms. The reason I say this is that those with differing views to mine on this thread are most likely less fussy about this. It would not surprise me to hear that those who think that shooting a pheasant is the equivalent of badger baiting are the very same people who buy cheap meat from Tesco's or go to McDonalds. If so, any argument put forward by them is hypocritical, baseless and flawed so not really worth responding to. That is not to say I won't argue the toss though....

Anyway, looking forward to hearing the opposing views..........


Snelly.

good stuff mate,i'm not interested in the debate about whether it's right or wrong.

the father in law is a gamekeeper and has been all his life,prior to meeting samantha i had no experience of it at all.in fact the only shooting i had done was at the local rifle club.they have ferrets etc and it's great,i love it.if i could i would shoot all the time,it's a great skill and is not as easy as people make out.

i am considering applying for a shotgun licence but whether it's worth while or not i don't know,it would mean i could go shooting at places like cluney clays on my own and at anytime but i'm not sure if i would have good enough reason to have one which means i'd probably get refused.i could say i was doing a lot of vermin control for boreland estate but i don't like to lie.

what is your take on this?

 

[Snelly]

If you had a shotgun, you would use it more I would think. It sounds like you have access to some shooting and wanting one for clays is enough of a reason. Provided you are of good character and don't have a criminal record or any mental health issues, it is unlikely that you would be refused a shotgun certificate. The onus is on your local constabulary to prove that you are unfit.

This is different to a fireams certificate where the onus is on you to prove that you have the need and access to ground that is passed for the calibre of rifle you are interested in acquiring. Not easy and rightly so.

Cheers,


Snelly.

 

[Monty_Brown]

I have been on plenty of shoots, mainly as a beater as a kid. That included game birds and also pest control (foxes) on farms. I don't agree with hunting with dogs, but that may well be a result of my moderately liberal sensiblities rather than in-depth knowledge of the practice.

My Dad has always shot, and we've grown up eating game birds, rabbits etc (we ate our neighbours pet rabbit once, but that's a story for another time).

I think I have a sensible and decent understanding of the links between animal welfare, death, and food production. I don't believe that many meat eaters do.

I love good meat, but eat it maybe once a week. This is largely due to budget. Like Snelly, I only eat meat whose provenance is clear. That means at least free range, and meeting acceptable welfare standards. Humanely dispatched. I get meat from my local butcher, as I know he can vouch for those criteria.

I am prepared to eat any parts of an animal, including brains, offal and the fattier cuts. I don't take the death of an animal for the pot lightly. If an animal has lost its life to feed us, we have a duty to eat as much of it as possible. I think there is a sense of decency about that.

I understand people may have a fundamental objection to shooting animals, but I hope that view is backed up by refusal to eat meat, or use any animals products like leather.

My two penneth.

 

[Smiffy]

For game species, that place is adjacent to the roast potatoes.

 

[DaveM]

I dont shoot anymore. But still catch fish for the table. I belive in the right of people to take part in all country sports. Be it gun rod or hound. Without the rantings of the ill informed few. Ramming their views down everyones gullet. You only have to look at the damage they did to the countryside with the release of hundereds of MINK onto the land. To see how little they know or care.

 

[AuburnWarrior]

or you are somewhere exotic with mammals much scarier than ours and you are about to get your butt kicked

I live in South London geezer! There's some very scary mammals around these parts.....

 

[AuburnWarrior]

My view is that all God's creatures have a place in the world. For game species, that place is adjacent to the roast potatoes.


Wull - I am with you on this and shoot regularly. Mostly rough shooting but some driven. Also have stalking rifles for harvesting venison/murdering Bambi and fox control on several farms and estates.

In addition, I have ferrets and a lurcher so rabbiting is a family activity for us most weekends through the autumn and winter.

I don't normally enter into debates on this subject with those (usually urban, Tesco-shopping omnivores!) who are anti-fieldsports as invariably, their views are totally entrenched and any logical argument is ignored in favour of an emotive, often hysterical response rendering the debate pointless. However in this instance, the bunny hugging replies on this thread are so simple minded, ignorant, ill-informed and frankly prejudiced that I am prepared to make an exception. So fire away and tell me how evil I am and I will respond and correct your misinformed view with a balanced, lucid argument.

Before you do though, you should note that as context, I am very, very keen on animal welfare. I won't eat meat that hasn't come from an animal that has lived a decent life. Nor do I eat eggs that haven't come from my or my friend's chickens. I am very particular about knowing where my food comes from and usually buy straight from friend's farms. The reason I say this is that those with differing views to mine on this thread are most likely less fussy about this. It would not surprise me to hear that those who think that shooting a pheasant is the equivalent of badger baiting are the very same people who buy cheap meat from Tesco's or go to McDonalds. If so, any argument put forward by them is hypocritical, baseless and flawed so not really worth responding to. That is not to say I won't argue the toss though....

Anyway, looking forward to hearing the opposing views..........


Snelly.

I would like nothing more than to visit a local farm to purchase my meat for the week but, alas, there aren't many smallholdings in South London! I'd have to drive for miles before I encountered such an establishment.

I do, however, purchase my meat from TESCO, etc for no other reason than it's convenient. Hypocritical I know but I don't really have a choice. Unfortunately, my Wife's Auntie nearly died from eating infected meat from a local butcher which, understandably, put her off butcher's for life.

I do try and purchase the higher end meats though, not the budget stuff as, like you, I hope the animal enjoyed a 'nice' life before being killed.

I'm not anti hunting per se. At the end of the day I'm a city boy so I've got no real idea what it's like to live in the countryside but, the point I was trying to make is that shooting grouse, etc is slightly one sided. In order to kill one bird you have a beater, a dog and another man who holds a shotgun/rifle. Why not do away with the beater and the dogs and go shooting on your own? Perhaps a silly question but, as a city boy, three against one doesn't seem right to me.

Also, you can't knock McDonalds! Their breakfasts are the best hangover food EVER!

 

[User20205]

, three against one doesn't seem right to me.

Maybe this would make it more of a sport

 

[wull]

I would like nothing more than to visit a local farm to purchase my meat for the week but, alas, there aren't many smallholdings in South London! I'd have to drive for miles before I encountered such an establishment.

I do, however, purchase my meat from TESCO, etc for no other reason than it's convenient. Hypocritical I know but I don't really have a choice. Unfortunately, my Wife's Auntie nearly died from eating infected meat from a local butcher which, understandably, put her off butcher's for life.

I do try and purchase the higher end meats though, not the budget stuff as, like you, I hope the animal enjoyed a 'nice' life before being killed.

I'm not anti hunting per se. At the end of the day I'm a city boy so I've got no real idea what it's like to live in the countryside but, the point I was trying to make is that shooting grouse, etc is slightly one sided. In order to kill one bird you have a beater, a dog and another man who holds a shotgun/rifle. Why not do away with the beater and the dogs and go shooting on your own? Perhaps a silly question but, as a city boy, three against one doesn't seem right to me.

Also, you can't knock McDonalds! Their breakfasts are the best hangover food EVER!

our day on monday was a rough day so no beaters,in a way we were the beaters.there were only 2 dogs as the picture shows and a lot of birds were put up by ourselves.

 

[DaveM]

AW the dogs are normally only there to retrieve to fallen game. So not part of the hunt as such.

 

[Bythesea]

have never tried it but doesnt mean i dont like it. i understand what its about and would love to try it. my family are farmers and some used to rear pheasants for the estates.

I am an old country boy! But tend to think the rearing of Pheasant's to shoot is the slaughter of the innocents.

 

[chris661]

I am an old country boy! But tend to think the rearing of Pheasant's to shoot is the slaughter of the innocents.

So you only eat wild cows and pigs then?