Foxes Or Rather A Lack Of Them

[Alsone 789]

Driven birds and game birds are eaten so go to the table so it's no different to rearing a cow and eating the beef. The only difference is you do the killing yourself rather than at the abattoir.

 

The whole principle of most live shooting sports is you're either:

 

1. Eating the quarry

 

- killing eg a pheasant means you wouldn't go to the butcher and eat a chicken so a life taken in the field saves a life at the abattoir as its reduces the demand to restock by 1. So its absolutely no different to eating meat any other way apart from you do the killing.

 

 

2. Culling off the excess

 

This is what happens with wildfowl. Most wildfowl and wetland conservation is done by shooters. The successful habitat management leads to excess numbers of wildfowl breeding which the shooters kill off in season to leave a healthy breeding population. (A failure to do this would leave more birds then there was food sources for in winter). Also, the same with deer management.

 

 

3.Pest Control

 

Essentially where species are out of their natural balance with other species because of man's interference eg the numbers of wood pigeon thanks to the growing of huge fields of crops which ensures there's more food around to sustain more birds than would naturally be the case, or foxes, where urban bins again mean there's more food around than would naturally be the case plus excess numbers of rabbits because of the crop situation. I'm sure there are more examples.

Edited July 28, 2013 by Alsone

[alan81 110]

 

 

 

calling it sport is just making a rod for your own back, it,s pest control all the way,

KILLING. IS KILLING. dont be so nieve as to think you can hide behind a few words. like shooter/ stalker/ . as far as your average anti is concerned.. everyone that kills animals in whatever way by whatever method FOR WHATEVER REASON. is fair game.

 

get real.

 

 

But there is a difference between killing for the sake of it and killing for conservation of the natural balance or the table.

 

What do you think about driven shooting and rearing of game birds. How does that fit in?

 

well that's not pest control that's a business in my view. take estates where the birds are reared and released for a group of shooters who have paid good money to shoot the birds this gives people jobs. also gun clubs have to buy there birds of a breeder, I know the club doesn't make money of the birds but the breeder does. this is not the case with pests at least not in Ireland no one here is paid for pest control.

[3175darren 1,093]

Sport is a word end of,it does not matter what word you use, when you have people who feel sorry for there dinner, there's a mental issue that only a trained person can deal with,call it a phobia, call it what you want, its not rational and technically it makes them herbivores,we on the other hand will eat our dinner as in meat which makes us carnivores,if you ask yourself this question,When did you ever see a zebra agree with what a lion does,the anti or vegetarian will never see eye to eye with what we do, and technically they discriminate against us, we are not allowed to gather our food under what name we use,so its best we use there name for doing so, as in harvesting, you will never rationalize these people,they do not get the same nutrients as us,and chose not to, so does that make them self harmers???????if so we all know that's a mental problem,and when it comes to the idiots who just want to ban what we do because they want to, well the government are seriously letting us down, by not being decisive and locking them up which is allowing there cause to gather momentum,they ride through our country side attacking honest people going about there harvesting, like the bloody clu clux clan

[Cleanspade 3,322]

 

 

calling it sport is just making a rod for your own back, it,s pest control all the way,

KILLING. IS KILLING. dont be so nieve as to think you can hide behind a few words. like shooter/ stalker/ . as far as your average anti is concerned.. everyone that kills animals in whatever way by whatever method FOR WHATEVER REASON. is fair game.

 

get real.

 

 

But there is a difference between killing for the sake of it and killing for conservation of the natural balance or the table.

 

conservation is a good word to hide behind. as it is bigger . try that one on the anti's. it wont work any more than it works on me. unless your in a paid job. then your out there becouse you enjoy it.. as far as anti hunters are concerned killing animals is unjustifiable. so try to justify it all you like. it wont work.

using other branches as cannon fodder will be counter productive also. this is my take on things

[The one 8,393]

It doesn't matter what you call it killing foxes in any way upsets people and pisses of the antis

[1888andybhoy 7]

I've had 3 cubs (one vixen 2 dogs) and the vixen to the cubs in snares around one of my release pens in the past 3 days all caught and dispatched and seen 1 in the same area with the lamp at night which i thing is the dog fox. Apart from that nothing on 15000 acres of my permission. Must be something going on. I'm the only only one who shoots my foxing permission and only got 2 litters of cubs at cubbing time with the terrier because of chicken killing so not down to that ether ? Any ideas ?

[sussex 5,776]

 

 

 

I sat up tue even in a field that had been cut & baled that morning on the lookout for roe ,knowing that the small shoot has got his birds in Charlie would bound to be about as well .nothing ..no roe (which didn't surprise me) but no fox which did ,will be out this evening so will see what comes out ...did count 47 rabbits in a 6 acre field though , 7 of which were jet black , never seen any in the six years iv'e been on there ..

You sure the the 7 black ones were not Moles on the move Rich ???.

 

They might have been Owen ,difficult to tell the difference .......thinking about it you could be right ! they might have come out to have a run around , after digging tunnels all day it must be nice to get a bit of fresh air & stretch yer legs ...Thanks for that help .....

You Sure they are not Stoats Rich.

 

Not 100% sure but i'm thinking your other idea about the moles is nearer the truth mate ..will go and sit up later and take my spectacles to try and clarify the situation ,thank you so much for your help and input .You are a true man-o-the woods.... ..............................

[Alsone 789]

 

 

 

calling it sport is just making a rod for your own back, it,s pest control all the way,

KILLING. IS KILLING. dont be so nieve as to think you can hide behind a few words. like shooter/ stalker/ . as far as your average anti is concerned.. everyone that kills animals in whatever way by whatever method FOR WHATEVER REASON. is fair game.

 

get real.

 

 

But there is a difference between killing for the sake of it and killing for conservation of the natural balance or the table.

 

conservation is a good word to hide behind. as it is bigger . try that one on the anti's. it wont work any more than it works on me. unless your in a paid job. then your out there becouse you enjoy it.. as far as anti hunters are concerned killing animals is unjustifiable. so try to justify it all you like. it wont work.

using other branches as cannon fodder will be counter productive also. this is my take on things

 

 

Just because people enjoy shooting doesn't mean there isn't a purpose behind it.

 

Equally yes, no reason for killing animals, no matter how good, will please the antis because the many are against ANY killing. These are the same people who campaign against animal farming and eating meat full stop, and many would like to stop angling.

 

So, I don't need to make excuses for shooting. The reasons behind it are there and for all to see:

 

- Most salt marshes in this country (I believe it's about %) are looked after and managed by shooting interests.

 

- Most farmers grant permissions because they have a pest problem not because they want to give pleasure to urban cowboys

 

- Most managed shoots eg Pheasants and Grouse etc are about revenue, jobs, species and habitat conservation (the money raised from most shoots pays to keep and manage the habitats which would otherwise be lost), and of course the spoils go as food to the table.

 

There's nothing there that isn't justified and if you are the rare person who gets pleasure purely from the killing aspect, then even then, the reason for you getting your permission from the farmer is entirely different to the reason you pursue shooting, so you may be shooting for shootings sake, but to the farmer and the countryside, you're providing a service.

[jeemes 3,491]

Driven birds and game birds are eaten so go to the table so it's no different to rearing a cow and eating the beef. The only difference is you do the killing yourself rather than at the abattoir.

 

The whole principle of most live shooting sports is you're either:

 

1. Eating the quarry

 

- killing eg a pheasant means you wouldn't go to the butcher and eat a chicken so a life taken in the field saves a life at the abattoir as its reduces the demand to restock by 1. So its absolutely no different to eating meat any other way apart from you do the killing.

 

 

2. Culling off the excess

 

This is what happens with wildfowl. Most wildfowl and wetland conservation is done by shooters. The successful habitat management leads to excess numbers of wildfowl breeding which the shooters kill off in season to leave a healthy breeding population. (A failure to do this would leave more birds then there was food sources for in winter). Also, the same with deer management.

 

 

3.Pest Control

 

Essentially where species are out of their natural balance with other species because of man's interference eg the numbers of wood pigeon thanks to the growing of huge fields of crops which ensures there's more food around to sustain more birds than would naturally be the case, or foxes, where urban bins again mean there's more food around than would naturally be the case plus excess numbers of rabbits because of the crop situation. I'm sure there are more examples.

What about shooting for the sheer pleasure of seeing a high bird come down to my shot and who cares if it gets eaten or just left in the grass for Charlie to find? Is that wrong. Should I give up shooting?

[1888andybhoy 7]

Well yes it is wrong because " who cares if it gets picked " well what if the bird is just pricked ? Are you just going to let it lie there and suffer ? These are the kind of comments that are giving the antis ammo against the shooting community....

[budharley 945]

 

Driven birds and game birds are eaten so go to the table so it's no different to rearing a cow and eating the beef. The only difference is you do the killing yourself rather than at the abattoir.

 

The whole principle of most live shooting sports is you're either:

 

1. Eating the quarry

 

- killing eg a pheasant means you wouldn't go to the butcher and eat a chicken so a life taken in the field saves a life at the abattoir as its reduces the demand to restock by 1. So its absolutely no different to eating meat any other way apart from you do the killing.

 

 

2. Culling off the excess

 

This is what happens with wildfowl. Most wildfowl and wetland conservation is done by shooters. The successful habitat management leads to excess numbers of wildfowl breeding which the shooters kill off in season to leave a healthy breeding population. (A failure to do this would leave more birds then there was food sources for in winter). Also, the same with deer management.

 

 

3.Pest Control

 

Essentially where species are out of their natural balance with other species because of man's interference eg the numbers of wood pigeon thanks to the growing of huge fields of crops which ensures there's more food around to sustain more birds than would naturally be the case, or foxes, where urban bins again mean there's more food around than would naturally be the case plus excess numbers of rabbits because of the crop situation. I'm sure there are more examples.

What about shooting for the sheer pleasure of seeing a high bird come down to my shot and who cares if it gets eaten or just left in the grass for Charlie to find? Is that wrong. Should I give up shooting?

 

yes you should

[jeemes 3,491]

Well yes it is wrong because " who cares if it gets picked " well what if the bird is just pricked ? Are you just going to let it lie there and suffer ? These are the kind of comments that are giving the antis ammo against the shooting community....

the question was to Alsone but of course the bird is stone dead.Otherwise it wouldnt of given me sheer pleasure. It is a hypathetical question. The Pheasant has done its job that it was brought into the world for by flying high and fast having been artificially put to flight in the direction of the waiting guns. The sportsman has achieved all he dreams about shooting a high fast bird dead in the air,and he has watched it come down to earth dead. Every part of its life upto that point has been artificially managed. Its probably cost around £25 to kill that bird or there abouts. My question is. Do I in your eyes have the right to shoot that bird for pleasure alone?,baring in mind its had a protected life and many truely wild animals have been killed in order to ensure its survival. It has never wanted for food or drink,and it was my money paying for all of that. Why should I worry about what happens to its carcass?

[scubadog 6]

 

Well yes it is wrong because " who cares if it gets picked " well what if the bird is just pricked ? Are you just going to let it lie there and suffer ? These are the kind of comments that are giving the antis ammo against the shooting community....

the question was to Alsone but of course the bird is stone dead.Otherwise it wouldnt of given me sheer pleasure. It is a hypathetical question. The Pheasant has done its job that it was brought into the world for by flying high and fast having been artificially put to flight in the direction of the waiting guns. The sportsman has achieved all he dreams about shooting a high fast bird dead in the air,and he has watched it come down to earth dead. Every part of its life upto that point has been artificially managed. Its probably cost around £25 to kill that bird or there abouts. My question is. Do I in your eyes have the right to shoot that bird for pleasure alone?,baring in mind its had a protected life and many truely wild animals have been killed in order to ensure its survival. It has never wanted for food or drink,and it was my money paying for all of that. Why should I worry about what happens to its carcass?

 

 

 

This is exactly the sort of crap that the antis love and that any real hunter hates!

If that is your attitude then you need to get it adjusted.

 

You will not be welcome on my shoot until it is adjusted.

Shooting is for food or for vermin control, the pleasure is in the social activity or in the hunter gathering - not to sooth your itch to kill!

[charlie caller 3,654]

Well well I do seem to have opened a can of worms spoke to a couple of shooting acquaintances over the weekend, and they both reported a lack of foxes on their ground,so I am now convinced something is going on, if this has something to do with the weather or not or some other factors I am not sure, but it has been noted in my shooting diary, for reference for future years, and on the subject of killing, you can dress it up in any terminology you want, but it will still all mean the same thing to anti's, you are a bloodthirsty cruel b*****d that has no place in modern society, but I wonder how many of them would stick to their principles if society broke down and they could not nip out to the vegan shop for a nut roast, I bet the majority would be seeking out the likes of us to feed them, I would feed a dog first before tw-ts like them

Edited July 29, 2013 by charlie caller

[jeemes 3,491]

 

 

Well yes it is wrong because " who cares if it gets picked " well what if the bird is just pricked ? Are you just going to let it lie there and suffer ? These are the kind of comments that are giving the antis ammo against the shooting community....

the question was to Alsone but of course the bird is stone dead.Otherwise it wouldnt of given me sheer pleasure. It is a hypathetical question. The Pheasant has done its job that it was brought into the world for by flying high and fast having been artificially put to flight in the direction of the waiting guns. The sportsman has achieved all he dreams about shooting a high fast bird dead in the air,and he has watched it come down to earth dead. Every part of its life upto that point has been artificially managed. Its probably cost around £25 to kill that bird or there abouts. My question is. Do I in your eyes have the right to shoot that bird for pleasure alone?,baring in mind its had a protected life and many truely wild animals have been killed in order to ensure its survival. It has never wanted for food or drink,and it was my money paying for all of that. Why should I worry about what happens to its carcass?

 

 

 

This is exactly the sort of crap that the antis love and that any real hunter hates!

If that is your attitude then you need to get it adjusted.

 

You will not be welcome on my shoot until it is adjusted.

Shooting is for food or for vermin control, the pleasure is in the social activity or in the hunter gathering - not to sooth your itch to kill!

 

 

 

Well yes it is wrong because " who cares if it gets picked " well what if the bird is just pricked ? Are you just going to let it lie there and suffer ? These are the kind of comments that are giving the antis ammo against the shooting community....

the question was to Alsone but of course the bird is stone dead.Otherwise it wouldnt of given me sheer pleasure. It is a hypathetical question. The Pheasant has done its job that it was brought into the world for by flying high and fast having been artificially put to flight in the direction of the waiting guns. The sportsman has achieved all he dreams about shooting a high fast bird dead in the air,and he has watched it come down to earth dead. Every part of its life upto that point has been artificially managed. Its probably cost around £25 to kill that bird or there abouts. My question is. Do I in your eyes have the right to shoot that bird for pleasure alone?,baring in mind its had a protected life and many truely wild animals have been killed in order to ensure its survival. It has never wanted for food or drink,and it was my money paying for all of that. Why should I worry about what happens to its carcass?

 

 

 

This is exactly the sort of crap that the antis love and that any real hunter hates!

If that is your attitude then you need to get it adjusted.

 

You will not be welcome on my shoot until it is adjusted.

Shooting is for food or for vermin control, the pleasure is in the social activity or in the hunter gathering - not to sooth your itch to kill!

 

Why dont you read it again.