Are there any hunters on sf

[RootsBooster 24]

How misinformed you are. Hunting is required to keep many species under control.

 

Good fun too.

Required by what or who?

Deer, Wilboar, Pigeons, rats, Squirrels, Fox, to name a few.

 

Many more fair game on Defra list.

 

Fact of life, get over it. or get a gun.

 

You've listed some legal quarry, but I've never heard of hunting being a requirement to keep them under control, especially wild boar.

[Obelix 11]

Most of the 'hunters' on this forum are no doubt of the type that traipse through field and woodland and take pot shots at anything that moves.

 

That's not a hunter. That's a vandal and most proper hunters would phone the police immediately to report someone endangering people with a firearm, and I have no doubt the police would respond appropriatly as well.

 

My .303 has a muzzle energy of nearly 3000 ft lbf and travels at nearly a kilometer a second - take potshots with that and you have no idea where the round goes - and it's still lethal at three miles if it hits you. You only ever shoot if there is a good "backstop" which generally means a large bank of earth or perhaps sometimes a good tree although that's much less satisfactory. Never consider rock to be good - there is a danger of richochet, and brush and scrub are no good either, even if you know it's unoccipied. You only fire if you know there is no one in the way, nothing, including any other game likely to move in the way. The bullet, even though you must use soft nose expanding rounds will typically transit the target and come out the other side, so you must ensure there is something to finally bring it to rest.

 

Taking potshots at anything moving just about violates everything going in the good hunting guide. Hunters simply do not do that. I took two shots today. Two kills. That's more or less normal - only very rarely should you have to wait and make a third shot for a wounded animal. If you do either your aim is crap, or you are shooting too light a round.

[libuse 10]

I took two stags today, both from about 100 yards. Clean shot through the heart[1], both took perhaps three paces and fell. I fail to see how you can make it any more humane than that - you don't have the animal being taken from field to market, then to abbatoir, getting stressed in a lorry, then corralled, then crushed in the constriction cage and then finally shot with a bolt gun.

 

Whilst I appreciate that the above probably didn't happen, given that this is the internet and thus a world of aspiration-based fantasies and lies, let's assume it did and that your question about humanity is valid; isn't the most humane approach not to eat the animal in the first place?

[Obelix 11]

Whilst I appreciate that the above probably didn't happen, given that this is the internet and thus a world of aspiration-based fantasies and lies, let's assume it did and that your question about humanity is valid; isn't the most humane approach not to eat the animal in the first place?

 

Let's assume then that I'll reply when you reconsider your insinuations above.

[Obelix 11]

And rats; is it true that no-one in London is ever more than a yard from the nearest rat?

 

I heard it was ten yards, but if Downing Street can get them and needs to have a Chief Mouser then I suppose most other places will be in the same boat!

[Lexikia 10]

Whilst I appreciate that the above probably didn't happen, given that this is the internet and thus a world of aspiration-based fantasies and lies, let's assume it did and that your question about humanity is valid; isn't the most humane approach not to eat the animal in the first place?

 

Of course it happened and happens every day across the country. The are over 2 million licensed shotgun and rifle owners in the england.

[libuse 10]

Let's assume then that I'll reply when you reconsider your insinuations above.

 

Fair enough. Everything you wrote is completely factual.

 

What makes you think it wouldn't be more humane not to eat them in the first place? I think that I understand meat eaters, I was one for a long time. However, I don't understand meat eaters who believe they are pursuing a humane route

[Lexikia 10]

Do you include the hunting of game birds in your judgement that hunting is more humane? What are your views on the cage transport used for importing game birds and the number of deaths caused by exposure that the game bird "industry" is responsible for? I'm not of the view that it's that humane

 

i can't afford to go game hunting at around £500 or more a day, and i agree that some fat business man paying thousands to try and use a shotgun, not easy, to clean kill a game bird is not accetable.

 

But your view is irrelevant, because millions of people eat meat and poultry, so your opinion will make no difefrence. Eating meat is good for human beings.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Lexikia

[Obelix 11]

Fair enough. Everything you wrote is completely factual.

 

What makes you think it wouldn't be more humane not to eat them in the first place? I think that I understand meat eaters, I was one for a long time. However, I don't understand meat eaters who believe they are pursuing a humane route

 

Umm Lexikia's post that disappeared appeared to cover it well, but basically if an animal has to die to be eaten, then the life of a deer in the wild in Scotland is considerably less stressful than that of a cow under modern intensive farming methods. Especially the manner of death - there is no stunning, no long drawn out handling all of which increase the stress to the animal. To an extent I do hunt for these reasons as well I guess.

[libuse 10]

Of course it happened and happens every day across the country. The are over 2 million licensed shotgun and rifle owners in the england.

 

Fair enough, but sometimes people rock up on threads like this (as, indeed, did the OP by her own admission) to cause a response. I believe it's called trolling. My view is that when a person joins such a thread in the way that the contributor I had commented upon did to detail the circumstances of their killing of an animal, it may be that they could also be seeking such a hollow and pointless reactionary response. Who knows? The internet is an odd place

[Lexikia 10]

Fair enough, but sometimes people rock up on threads like this (as, indeed, did the OP by her own admission) to cause a response. I believe it's called trolling. My view is that when a person joins such a thread in the way that the contributor I had commented upon did to detail the circumstances of their killing of an animal, it may be that they could also be seeking such a hollow and pointless reactionary response. Who knows? The internet is an odd place

 

So true. Can't please every one

[Obelix 11]

Fair enough, but sometimes people rock up on threads like this (as, indeed, did the OP by her own admission) to cause a response. I believe it's called trolling. My view is that when a person joins such a thread in the way that the contributor I had commented upon did to detail the circumstances of their killing of an animal, it may be that they could also be seeking such a hollow and pointless reactionary response. Who knows? The internet is an odd place

 

Or perhaps to state it as it is..?

 

As I said further up the thread to someone else, I don't ask people to understand my reasons. I would like them however to understand what actually happens when people do go hunting, and how great efforts are taken to minimise the risk to other people, to minimise the suffering of the quarry and to make maximum use of the carcass.