Jump to content

Alsone

Members
  • Content count

    1,274
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

287 Excellent

About Alsone

  • Rank
    Extreme Hunter

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Middle of nowhere
  1. gun law

    I'd actually call that playing with fire (pun not intended). For one I'm pretty sure it's illegal to be in possession of a firearm if intoxicated. Although that can be easily mitigated by limiting your intake, it is more blatant and more likely to lead to a challenge if you have a beer in one hand and a (sleeved) gun in the other. In the car, no-one knows you possess one. Secondly, the whole leaving them in the inglenook part gives me shivers. What part of someone thinks that leaving guns in a fireplace unsecured is more secure than leaving them out of sight locked in a secure vehicle boot? Anyone could walk past and simply pick one up and walk out whilst the owner is distracted. Be far more likely to lose your licence for that - propping a gun up out in the open in a public space such as a pub, than a theft from a locked vehicle where the gun was out of sight. As for precautions, it's open to interpretation as Dekers says, but a good start might be to fit a trigger lock. Other common measures include hiding the breach and barrels in different places and using a cable lock (bicycle style lock) to lock either the action or barrels to part of the vehicle bodywork ie an exposed steel internal strut. Other precautions might include a vehicle safe if you take them out a lot or want to ensure ultimate security. However, I'm sure in most cases some of the former will suffice. Trigger locks are dirt cheap anyway so should always be a consideration for any gun.
  2. Foxes with HMR

    True but it's more marginal with a small calibre bullet with low energy. Search Youtube and you'll find at least several people shooting wild boar with a .22LR. Doesn't mean it's a good idea. HMR is ok on fox at sensible range in expert hands. Luckily, Deker can shoot accurately and place it well.
  3. Rabbits with HMR

    I agree pest control is not restricted to the countryside, but we were talking about rabbits, deer and mink, not your typical urban pests and not ones you'll find much support for controlling them from city folk. Rabbits are seen as cute and cuddly rabbit hutch pets, deer as Bambi and Mink as victims of fur farming. City folk neither see nor care about the destruction they do. Equally grouse and shark show the change in views, no-one was suggesting they amounted to pest control, although in Aus, the latter might fall into that category! If you get a call to a shark in a house in a UK city, I'd certainly be interested to go along! For sure, people en masse are not going to object to the destruction of wasps nests or rats in people's roofs. On the rest though, you have a perspective, I have another one based on the way my own friends, neighbours, and the views in many papers I read have changed in the last 2 years. Certainly in the North and in the papers I read and on social media, the views have changed within the last couple of years and not for the better from a shooting perspective. People I knew not long ago that only wanted to save the whale or the dolphin, now want to save anything that could be considered cute and cuddly, and some creatures that definitely aren't, and believe nothing should ever be killed for any reason. More and more people support conservation and hold the view that conservation = killing / controlling nothing, but simply leaving the countryside to find it's own balance. They simply don't realise the countryside is already unbalanced through mans farming activities. In my experience the swing is large. I currently have a lot of contact and conversations with people walking in a National Park. Not one person I've spoken to in the last couple of years has believed in shooting (read pest control) in the countryside. In fact my local National Park is managed by the RSPB, who have a visitor education centre in the park......, and all of whom were really friendly then stopped speaking to me as soon as they found out I used to shoot....... For the sake of the thread, I'm not going to continue to argue. .back to the HMR.....
  4. Rabbits with HMR

    Deker, the rise of the animal hugging brigade in this country is enormous. If you think the urban population is on your side, then just look at the comments below this article on Grouse Hunting in the Guardian, which arguably has quite an upper / middle class / more shooting orientated audience: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/12/grouse-shooting-glorious-twelfth-times-up-for-inglorious-victorian-sport Almost overwhelming support for a ban on shooting and grouse shooting, and eco conservation mentioned several times as justification for leaving the countryside alone along with lots of praise for Chris Packam. Elsewhere in the world (because I mentioned it above!) Following 7 fatal shark attacks in Northern Australia in just 3 years (plus many more non fatal), a cull was planned, but has been met by massive opposition even from some people who've been victims of attacks with mass protests and placards such as Whites have rights: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26937924 . These are not animals messing up crops, these are animals eating people but the anti-control message is now so strong amongst many urban conservationists, that even deaths are no longer enough to justify lethal control. You shoot for a living, you're a pest controller, you're countrified, you have a certain perspective. I live in a large urban city and largely mix with urban dwellers. I don't know of anyone who doesn't already shoot who supports any form of lethal pest control for anything other than some insect species, or even gun ownership anymore. I even had a neighbour express her displeasure at me putting ant poison down last summer!!! Never mind the ants were breeding on my drive with colonies underground and in such numbers they were in danger of invading my home. It was poor ants, you be ashamed of killing them, and leave them alone! Amongst my own relatives and friends I know, not one child is even allowed to own a toy gun never mind play with one, as even toy guns lead to violence and children becoming violent / killers according to the new socialist beliefs. The antis are winning the propaganda battle big time amongst the urban population because the urban population believe conservation = saving everything - they don't understand how man has put the countryside out of balance and that control needs to be applied to actually keep a balance, and the urban population far outweighs the country folk in both numbers and weight of views, and yes I do know plenty of people who would object to the killing of grey squirrels, deer, and Mink. I'd find it hard not to find anyone that didn't. Rats and crayfish, maybe not, and geese, well maybe not around Christmas!
  5. Rabbits with HMR

    I fully expect you to take a different view being a professional pest controller, although a loss of shooting means a loss of income for you. Rats yes. The other species you list are more nuisances to people and their activities in growing crops / maintaining golf courses, than dangers to public health. If you were to take a nationwide poll of the whole population then I'd reckon a very high percentage of the population, and certainly a majority would say that ALL pest control should be banned, and that farmers should just have to live with nature and the losses that result. I wouldn't be surprised to see it at or approaching 90%. That's not a view I take, but we live in a country that everyday is turning more and more against any means of controlling the countryside, even where it is to correct an imbalance (most people don't appreciate the relationship between crops, food supply and pests and are swayed by urban conservationists arguments). Yes I'm fully aware of the position 60 years ago between the Government, public and rabbits. But that was 60 years ago and attitudes have changed. No government could ever consider such an introduction today. Look at the controversy just a small limited badger cull has caused. Attitudes have changed and most urban people see all animals as small and cuddly and that nature should be allowed to take it's course no matter what the consequences. I know a golf club groundsman and even he tells me he finds rabbits cute and is reluctant to allow anyone to control them. As for deer, he prefers to use shields around young trees. Also, to see attitudes just look at the flurry of Shark Attacks in the Northern Territories in Australia or on Re-union island. Despite multiple deaths, a large proportion of the population think the sharks shouldn't be culled. That's the way attitudes have changed. They'd rather people were eaten or banned from swimming than have wildlife displaced or removed. Ultimately there will be more and more calls for shooting to be banned (including pest control), and ultimately if shooting is not shown to be contributing to conservation but instead wiping out species in some areas, then it only feeds the antis and the calls for a ban. If shooting survives another 50 years in this country without being totally banned, I'll be very surprised in any event.
  6. Rabbits with HMR

    I don't believe it's in anyone's interest to wipe out a particular species on a piece of land. At the end of the day, the aim of shooting is to restore the balance to the countryside to counter the imbalance created by the growth of large food sources in the form of crops. To wipe out everything that's regarded as a pest species causes an imbalance in itself and a knock on for other species eg remove all the rabbits, and foxes and birds of prey can suffer from a lack of food. It also doesn't do you the shooter any favours to wipe a piece of land clean leaving nothing to shoot for several years whilst species move back in from other areas. Nor does it do the sport any favour when conservationists and antis look at us and see instances of land being wiped clean. Shooting needs to maintain it's conservation side and image to survive. I believe shooting will only be around in the long term if we as shooters can prove we are contributing to conservation and the eco system, not destroying it by reckless and excess pest control. Any farmer worth his salt will also know the importance of maintaining a natural balance and of keeping species in check rather than going for total extermination. Those that don't need educating rather than catering to.
  7. It might be possible to stream direct from a wireless GoPro to your phone - see periscope app for the iphone (unsure here of the wifi range). Failing that, check out RC forums / shops as most RC aircraft / drones these days use FPS cameras that can stream live footage back to the receiver (in some cases with a phone used as a screen). Typical cameras would be cameras such as the Runcam, Mobius etc. Obviously on top of these you need a couple of housings, batteries with suitable connection / circuits, a transmitter circuit and a receiver circuit. However, most of the rc circuits aren't expensive to buy.
  8. .17

    With HMR just ensure the round has left the barrel after every shot by watching for the impact or inspecting the chamber if in doubt (from the breach end!!!!) or on an unloaded and made safe gun that's been triple cycled and verified safe if using a rod from the barrel end. Also worth inspecting the block of ammo for split casings after purchase.
  9. .17

    If you're wanting a 200yd rifle then you should be thinking about a hornet in .17 or .22. That said, it becomes an expensive rabbiting tool. Cheapest option is along your current lines combined with some thought as to how you can narrow the distance.
  10. Shotgun model/age?!

    You might get an answer here: https://www.justanswer.com/bluebookfirearms/90e08-info-year-etc-miroku-shotgun-serial-number.html
  11. No problem, never took it that way. Same from me to you btw. We all have our own experiences.
  12. I'm not wanting to put you off in any way, just trying to ensure you know what you're getting yourself into. I was lucky in that at the time I brought my case, I didn't have insurance, but equally I had no money or assets so there was nothing they could award against me costs wise if I lost. As it happens I won outright which actually helps me a lot now for reasons I don't want to post publicly so as not to feed the antis. If you have the financial backing and can afford to risk the costs, then by all means go for it. There's nothing like standing up for your rights and I'd encourage anyone with backing or insurance to go for it every time if they have a realistic prospect of success and have been unfairly treated. The main thing for anyone to ensure is that their prospects of success are realistic and they can afford to cover any possible outcome.
  13. I'm guessing you won then. I've been there and won, and it cost me nothing beyond phone calls and letters. However, lose and you will get hit for the Barristers time, which could be as much as £500 per hour depending on his seniority, which will include his research time as well as time at Court, plus any legal opinions he prepared for the police which could have taken hours and hours of his time. Plus all of the police costs for their time and time off attending Court. It can add up. I didn't pull £10k out of the hat, I believe that's the figure |I've seen a shooting organisation mention somewhere as a possible figure if you should lose. It's certainly not out of the realms of possibility. Mad Max, it's not your own costs you need to worry about so much as the Police's if you lose. Your own costs might only be £1K. Their bill could be many times higher.
  14. Just be aware of what you're getting yourself into without insurance. If you lose, you could be looking at as much as a £10K bill. The police will almost certainly employ a Barrister and if you lose, you'll be hit with his costs as well as your own Solicitors' costs, and those costs won't only be the cost of attending Court, but all the weeks of preparation he's put into it.
  15. Barrel burner ????

    Anything powerful enough to reach out to 250yds, is going to destroy your rabbits. At the revised distances of 100-150yds, .22LR HV is easily usable. At a zero of 125 yds using CCI Stingers Bullet data gives 2 inches over at 100yds and 5 inches below at 150yds. Both of those are manageable drops especially if your ranging accurately and even more so if you can use the scope turrets properly. If you don't already use the compensation turrets, now is probably a good time to learn. Elliot on here is somewhat of a master.
×