Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

pellet lodged


  • Please log in to reply
147 replies to this topic

#61 Caprelous

Caprelous

    Extreme Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 926 posts
  • Location:Yorkshire

Posted 18 November 2011 - 01:01 pm


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. 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 thOn t


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?

In answer to your question Its my point of view as that this little country/island that we live on deer do not have any natural predators the last natural predator being the wolf was shot and killed at Humphrey Head Cumbria obviously the wolf had to kill other animals to survive itself, we as human being obviously do not need to rely of venison as food totally for our existance however after seeing first hand the results that dogs attacking deer do ,I am of the opinion and its my personal opinion that a more humane method of culling and controlling deer needs to be carried out, non are 100% free of critical remarks when it comes to what is the best form of control ,but it is my belief that shooting with an high powered rifle with correct shot placement lessens the length of time in the animals demise , I accept mistakes do happen but even so overhaul it is my view obviously not shared with others that death more often than not is quicker than it would be by a pack of deer hounds goring an animal which results in extreme stress not only during the pursuit but when the animals brought to ground. Please note these are my views and I accept not shared by others.
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?


You make a good point but not exactly correct as a competent deerstalker dosent shoot just any animal that he encounters and most of the animals he culls ,have been observed for a considerable period of time and individual animals to meet a selected cull criteria are removed whether they are old animals past there best or infirm or those not required in providing the future genes required in further generations

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.



I cant disagree your views here do happen and are deplorable in my view, each and everyone of us have a duty to any animal to bring about its demise with as minimum suffering as we can as the law stands anything outside those views in law is considered a criminal offence as all sportsmen are aware.




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.

I can only comment in respect as to my views based on what I have seen and the effects of running dogs on deer and i have also come across in my stalking life which is over 30 years deer shot with bird shot which also i find deplorable shotguns loaded with bird shot cannot be used legally etc for dispatching a wounded deer to prevent further suffering.

.


My personal views and opinions please accept them as mine and may or may not be shared by others
Regards
Stuart

Edited by Caprelous, 18 November 2011 - 01:05 pm.


#62 Born Hunter

Born Hunter

    Quantum Reality Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,461 posts
  • Location:Lincs/Notts

Posted 18 November 2011 - 01:13 pm



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. 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 thOn t


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?

In answer to your question Its my point of view as that this little country/island that we live on deer do not have any natural predators the last natural predator being the wolf was shot and killed at Humphrey Head Cumbria obviously the wolf had to kill other animals to survive itself, we as human being obviously do not need to rely of venison as food totally for our existance however after seeing first hand the results that dogs attacking deer do ,I am of the opinion and its my personal opinion that a more humane method of culling and controlling deer needs to be carried out, non are 100% free of critical remarks when it comes to what is the best form of control ,but it is my belief that shooting with an high powered rifle with correct shot placement lessens the length of time in the animals demise , I accept mistakes do happen but even so overhaul it is my view obviously not shared with others that death more often than not is quicker than it would be by a pack of deer hounds goring an animal which results in extreme stress not only during the pursuit but when the animals brought to ground. Please note these are my views and I accept not shared by others.
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?


You make a good point but not exactly correct as a competent deerstalker dosent shoot just any animal that he encounters and most of the animals he culls ,have been observed for a considerable period of time and individual animals to meet a selected cull criteria are removed whether they are old animals past there best or infirm or those not required in providing the future genes required in further generations

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.



I cant disagree your views here do happen and are deplorable in my view, each and everyone of us have a duty to any animal to bring about its demise with as minimum suffering as we can as the law stands anything outside those views in law is considered a criminal offence as all sportsmen are aware.




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.

I can only comment in respect as to my views based on what I have seen and the effects of running dogs on deer and i have also come across in my stalking life which is over 30 years deer shot with bird shot which also i find deplorable shotguns loaded with bird shot cannot be used legally etc for dispatching a wounded deer to prevent further suffering.

.

My personal views and opinions please accept them as mine and may or may not be shared by others
Regards
Stuart

Completely accept ya views/opinions and experience sir. It's a subjective topic. Our opinions differ but thats life.

I'm happy to leave it at that, the only point I'll clarify is that I am aware of the process involved in managing a wild deer population and the decisions that have to be made before culling. But I don't believe that any human can make a better decision than mother nature herself and to me running with sighthounds or hunting with scent hounds is one of the ways nature intended to ensure only the fittest deer survive. Like you I am left with a bitter taste in my mouth when I feel I have hunted and killed a wild animal in an unfair or unjustified manor. It's one thing all sporting and ethical hunters hold in common, even if they're methods and justifications differ.

That is my opinion, no more valid than your own. Nice talking to you, :thumbs: .

#63 Caprelous

Caprelous

    Extreme Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 926 posts
  • Location:Yorkshire

Posted 18 November 2011 - 01:23 pm




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. 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 thOn t


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?

In answer to your question Its my point of view as that this little country/island that we live on deer do not have any natural predators the last natural predator being the wolf was shot and killed at Humphrey Head Cumbria obviously the wolf had to kill other animals to survive itself, we as human being obviously do not need to rely of venison as food totally for our existance however after seeing first hand the results that dogs attacking deer do ,I am of the opinion and its my personal opinion that a more humane method of culling and controlling deer needs to be carried out, non are 100% free of critical remarks when it comes to what is the best form of control ,but it is my belief that shooting with an high powered rifle with correct shot placement lessens the length of time in the animals demise , I accept mistakes do happen but even so overhaul it is my view obviously not shared with others that death more often than not is quicker than it would be by a pack of deer hounds goring an animal which results in extreme stress not only during the pursuit but when the animals brought to ground. Please note these are my views and I accept not shared by others.
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?


You make a good point but not exactly correct as a competent deerstalker dosent shoot just any animal that he encounters and most of the animals he culls ,have been observed for a considerable period of time and individual animals to meet a selected cull criteria are removed whether they are old animals past there best or infirm or those not required in providing the future genes required in further generations

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.



I cant disagree your views here do happen and are deplorable in my view, each and everyone of us have a duty to any animal to bring about its demise with as minimum suffering as we can as the law stands anything outside those views in law is considered a criminal offence as all sportsmen are aware.




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.

I can only comment in respect as to my views based on what I have seen and the effects of running dogs on deer and i have also come across in my stalking life which is over 30 years deer shot with bird shot which also i find deplorable shotguns loaded with bird shot cannot be used legally etc for dispatching a wounded deer to prevent further suffering.

.

My personal views and opinions please accept them as mine and may or may not be shared by others
Regards
Stuart

Completely accept ya views/opinions and experience sir. It's a subjective topic. Our opinions differ but thats life.

I'm happy to leave it at that, the only point I'll clarify is that I am aware of the process involved in managing a wild deer population and the decisions that have to be made before culling. But I don't believe that any human can make a better decision than mother nature herself and to me running with sighthounds or hunting with scent hounds is one of the ways nature intended to ensure only the fittest deer survive. Like you I am left with a bitter taste in my mouth when I feel I have hunted and killed a wild animal in an unfair or unjustified manor. It's one thing all sporting and ethical hunters hold in common, even if they're methods and justifications differ.

That is my opinion, no more valid than your own. Nice talking to you, http://www.thehuntinglife.com/forums/pub... .

Like wise nice exchanging views and personal beliefs.
Kind Regards
Stuart
  • Born Hunter likes this

#64 bunnybasher69

bunnybasher69

    Born Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 229 posts

Posted 18 November 2011 - 01:53 pm

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.

Any animal that is being chased will produce these toxins and the meat can be treated to help remove these toxins before eating the meat. Of course it would taste better without any stress caused but to say you can't eat it is a bit much. As far as the animals being torn to shreads that is down to that hunter and should not be generalized onto all that have hunted deer with dogs. I know there have been quite a few off shots that cause greater distress over a much longer period of time than a "pack of dogs" if your concerns are about being humane. It would make sense to at least keep a dog with you in case of a bad shot.


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



#65 gerfalcon

gerfalcon

    Born Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 190 posts

Posted 18 November 2011 - 02:27 pm

If you work on the facts, then why have you told downright lies about the findings of the Burns report..... http://www.thehuntinglife.com/forums/pub...


What lies would they happen to be? Unless of course the Burn inquiry did look at fishing http://www.thehuntinglife.com/forums/pub...

Still waiting for your reply to this one. I accept that it may be difficult for you to answer. But have a go never the less.



No, the only person who's opinion matters is the person who's paying the members of parliament.... http://www.thehuntinglife.com/forums/pub... http://www.thehuntinglife.com/forums/pub...


That's a bold claim. Especially without any collaborative evidnece to support it.
http://www.thehuntinglife.com/forums/pub...

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..... http://www.thehuntinglife.com/forums/pub...

By MP's I take it you mean MP singular i.e. the late Tony Banks. His AR/LACS connections and funding were well known for years. So not surprises there. If you mean MP's put some names in the frames. There where approximately 620 MP's sitting on the benches, and they all voted.

We can all make unsubstantiated claims. Its facts that count and you appear to be rather light where they are concerned.

As for accusing me of sounding more like our opponents. You make it obvious that you haven't had a great deal to do with them. They are past masters at this debate and relish putting uninformed and unsubstantiated claim making, prohunt clap trap spouting imbeciles thru the wringer and then hanging them out to dry after they have had their fun with them. My guess is they would relish a debate with you. I'm not so sure the relish would be equally spread in both sides though. The dread feeling of being out of ones depth can come on might fast in such circumstances.

#66 Caprelous

Caprelous

    Extreme Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 926 posts
  • Location:Yorkshire

Posted 18 November 2011 - 02:33 pm


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.

Any animal that is being chased will produce these toxins and the meat can be treated to help remove these toxins before eating the meat.

I personally would not eat it before or after treatment and your correct any animal distressed by chase does impart toxins into its body a relaxed quarry at time of death produces acceptable levels in my opinion.

Of course it would taste better without any stress caused but to say you can't eat it is a bit much. As far as the animals being torn to shreads that is down to that hunter and should not be generalized onto all that have hunted deer with dogs.

As I haven't run dogs against deer i cant comment I have only come across the results of those that have in a poaching scenario and the evidence is clearly visual in the carcass .
Its up to each individual hunter and beliefs if they find this acceptable that's a question you should be asking them ,personally i don't find it acceptable but those are my own personal beliefs.


I know there have been quite a few off shots that cause greater distress over a much longer period of time than a "pack of dogs"

I think I would have to disagree with you on that statement , I admit mistakes are sometimes made where a beast is shot and death is not instant, although its every deerstalkers objective to use his skill in minimizing that event and should such an event occur to have a dog available to search and find using the dogs senses and skills to dispatch the animal to prevent further suffering.

if your concerns are about being humane. It would make sense to at least keep a dog with you in case of a bad shot.


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


Edited by Caprelous, 18 November 2011 - 02:51 pm.


#67 gerfalcon

gerfalcon

    Born Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 190 posts

Posted 18 November 2011 - 02:43 pm


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 http://www.thehuntinglife.com/forums/pub... me and most other TRUE hunters I am sure. http://www.thehuntinglife.com/forums/pub... http://www.thehuntinglife.com/forums/pub...

Sirius

I can assure my knowledge of the subject matter is quite extensive. Unlike some I am not blinded to the truth due to some predetermined choice or selective memory. The fact that I agree with the LACS in regards to coursing deer . That is the only thing that I agree with them on. Which hardly constitutes siding with them. IMO

I accept that accidents happen and errors of good judgement occur. Even I have made mistakes in the past. However there is a huge difference between accidents, mistakes, errors, as in when shots go wrong whilst stalking, and the deliberate act of coursing deer. The differences start from the very first act.............. intent!

I'm interested in your views of what constitutes a TRUE hunter. As opposed to a untrue hunter.

#68 Caprelous

Caprelous

    Extreme Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 926 posts
  • Location:Yorkshire

Posted 18 November 2011 - 03:00 pm



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 http://www.thehuntinglife.com/forums/pub... me and most other TRUE hunters I am sure. http://www.thehuntinglife.com/forums/pub... http://www.thehuntinglife.com/forums/pub...

Sirius

I can assure my knowledge of the subject matter is quite extensive. Unlike some I am not blinded to the truth due to some predetermined choice or selective memory. The fact that I agree with the LACS in regards to coursing deer . That is the only thing that I agree with them on. Which hardly constitutes siding with them. IMO

I accept that accidents happen and errors of good judgement occur. Even I have made mistakes in the past. However there is a huge difference between accidents, mistakes, errors, as in when shots go wrong whilst stalking, and the deliberate act of coursing deer. The differences start from the very first act.............. intent!

I'm interested in your views of what constitutes a TRUE hunter. As opposed to a untrue hunter.

That comment H is as in past tense you are telling porkies :D
Are you trying to proclaim you dont make them anymore? :whistling:

#69 gerfalcon

gerfalcon

    Born Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 190 posts

Posted 18 November 2011 - 03:06 pm

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!

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.

#70 gerfalcon

gerfalcon

    Born Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 190 posts

Posted 18 November 2011 - 03:27 pm

That comment H is as in past tense you are telling porkies http://www.thehuntinglife.com/forums/pub...
Are you trying to proclaim you dont make them anymore? http://www.thehuntinglife.com/forums/pub...


Stu

I leave the porkies to others my friend. its true I have made mistakes in the past. As we know no one is infallible. With experience, increased knowledge and a willingness to learn from ones mistakes. The errors become fewer in number. Until they get to be infrequent or indeed extremely rare. But we are dealing with inexactitudes when we are stalking wild deer. But at least we only have ourselves to blame and not the dog. :angel:

#71 gerfalcon

gerfalcon

    Born Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 190 posts

Posted 18 November 2011 - 03:35 pm

It's one thing all sporting and ethical hunters hold in common, even if they're methods and justifications differ.


You have both raised interesting points.

What happens when the methogoly is deemed to be unethical and the justification judged to be non-existent? Where does the sporting aspect go?

Stalking/ Deer control is not immune from these criticisms. Take the recent mass culls of Scotlands red deer herds in the name of Caledonia Forest preservation for instance.

#72 Caprelous

Caprelous

    Extreme Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 926 posts
  • Location:Yorkshire

Posted 18 November 2011 - 03:50 pm

It's one thing all sporting and ethical hunters hold in common, even if they're methods and justifications differ.


You have both raised interesting points.

What happens when the methogoly is deemed to be unethical and the justification judged to be non-existent? Where does the sporting aspect go?

Thats one for the Gods not lesser mortals like myself my friend http://www.thehuntinglife.com/forums/pub...

Stalking/ Deer control is not immune from these criticisms. Take the recent mass culls of Scotlands red deer herds in the name of Caledonia Forest preservation for instance.

D

Ahh w ell thats an issue that could open the longest can of worms ever so i wont even broach or offer my views on it other than such culls have taken place before to the same extent as they have today, and like its caused considerable consternation today it also caused unrest many years ago, but maybe we should leave that one for another day rather than cloud what appears to be a logical points of view by those taking part in this current debate.

Kind Regards
Stu

#73 Born Hunter

Born Hunter

    Quantum Reality Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,461 posts
  • Location:Lincs/Notts

Posted 18 November 2011 - 03:55 pm


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!

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.

That's something we will just have to disagree on. I have my reasons, I doubt anything I can say will change yours so I'm happy to leave it amicably there. :thumbs:

#74 Born Hunter

Born Hunter

    Quantum Reality Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,461 posts
  • Location:Lincs/Notts

Posted 18 November 2011 - 03:58 pm

It's one thing all sporting and ethical hunters hold in common, even if they're methods and justifications differ.


You have both raised interesting points.

What happens when the methogoly is deemed to be unethical and the justification judged to be non-existent? Where does the sporting aspect go?

Stalking/ Deer control is not immune from these criticisms. Take the recent mass culls of Scotlands red deer herds in the name of Caledonia Forest preservation for instance.


Judged/deemed by who? The courts? The League? Fellow hunters? Myself?

Any judgement would be subjective, hence the only one that matters to me is my own, derived through my conscience and many hours of thought on my own morals...

Edited by Born Hunter, 18 November 2011 - 04:00 pm.


#75 Tyla

Tyla

    Extreme Hunter

  • Donator
  • 3,259 posts
  • Location:Sussex

Posted 18 November 2011 - 04:00 pm

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!
  • bunnybasher69 likes this


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users