Hunting is in a spot of bother

Nancykitt said:
I also think that the 'hunting community' has been seen as a singular entity and it would have been far better for the drag & bloodhounds crowd to distance themselves from the others. They will probably pay the price now.
Click to expand...

The drag and bloodhound packs do have a totally separate governing body - The Masters of Draghounds and Bloodhounds Association. Whereas the foxhound packs have The Masters of Foxhounds Association. I think it has actually become harder for drag and bloodhound packs to differentiate themselves since the ban, due to the confusing messages given out by people following traditional foxhound packs. I have often seen people on social media say they are 'drag hunting' when actually they are out with the foxhounds.
 
palo1 said:
Because that is generally better for nature. There is a recognition of the need for all animals to be the strongest they can be in order for the natural system to be robust and resilient. It's not a new idea.
Click to expand...

I am aware of the idea... I'm just confused to why you ( pro hunt not you the individual) would want an animal that is vermin to you, to be strong and healthy? Wouldn't it be better if the vermin were weak and sick? Wouldn't that make them less likley to attack lambs and chickens??
Why do people not try to maintain a healthy rat population?? They are vital vermin too?
 
moosea said:
I am aware of the idea... I'm just confused to why you ( pro hunt not you the individual) would want an animal that is vermin to you, to be strong and healthy? Wouldn't it be better if the vermin were weak and sick? Wouldn't that make them less likley to attack lambs and chickens??
Why do people not try to maintain a healthy rat population?? They are vital vermin too?
Click to expand...
Healthy foxes tend not to hunt in broad daylight, so chickens etc are safer. Whenever we shot a fox in the garden in daylight it was mangy or old and in poor condition.
 
Clodagh said:
Healthy foxes tend not to hunt in broad daylight, so chickens etc are safer. Whenever we shot a fox in the garden in daylight it was mangy or old and in poor condition.
Click to expand...

So... so if the fox population was sick and weak they would hunt in the daytime? Wouldn't that make it easier to shoot them cleanly with one shot then??
 
The argument that anyone would want a sick or weak species is a bit bizarre as it looks like a long term condition to me. Surely it's better that an animal is healthy or doesn't exist at all if you can't make them better somehow. Most of the sick foxes I've seen have been in urban areas. Country side foxes have always looked fairly healthy to me.
 
lannerch said:
Except people still don’t . Shooting is rarely the clean instant death we all like to imagine it is.
Click to expand...
That really is hunting propaganda rubbish. I’ve been out on many a nights lamping and every body is accounted for.
Injuries only happen when people use air rifles or shotguns with too light a shot.
 
Clodagh said:
That really is hunting propaganda rubbish. I’ve been out on many a nights lamping and every body is accounted for.
Injuries only happen when people use air rifles or shotguns with too light a shot.
Click to expand...

Yes. I agree but a lot of folk seem to think that farmers or landowners in general should be using a high velocity rifle for pest control/fox control yet that is a potentially very dangerous and rather specialised weapon. Farmers on the whole do NOT want to invest in the licence conditions of a HVR. They tend to have a shotgun though which won't so easily provide the fatal clean shot that people want to see.

Foxxers, as they are known will use HVRs and night sights etc and are very effective (as are other shots with the right kind of gun and the time to do the job). Foxxing has become a sport in it's own right since the ban though possibly not purely as a result of that. In these parts foxxing is a fairly popular minority thing and landowners are happy to give consent for shooting foxes all year round. It is easier for landowners to cater for people with guns than perhaps a pack of hounds but personally, I don't think it is better for foxes. It is not untrue that some shots (by a commonly owned shotgun) will only injure but most people are perhaps unaware of the very significant differences between a shotgun and a rifle. A rifle is definitely not something that you want to see a great many people owning really and there are conditions to that licence which mean many people will not want one anyway.

It is not as simple as 'a clean shot' because of those things. Just my view but I don't want to tar all shots as being haphazard or not fatal (because someone with a rifle will in all likelihood be skilled and committed) any more than I want to assert that a shotgun will provide the clean fatality that is most desirable.
 
ycbm said:
It is round here, where it has always been done and a number of locals are real experts at taking rat, rabbit, fox and deer. And the occasional dog.
.
Click to expand...

@ycbm - you just can't know that. In any area there are and will be animals shot poorly or with the wrong gun/ammunition. There are frequent reports about deer and other animals wounded horribly by people who are shooting without the right thing or without skill.
 
Clodagh said:
That really is hunting propaganda rubbish. I’ve been out on many a nights lamping and every body is accounted for.
Injuries only happen when people use air rifles or shotguns with too light a shot.
Click to expand...
Rubbish I used to be close friends with a gamekeeper who was a good shot and had the right guns ( he had a licence to shoot deer ) and still the odd one got away injured to be fair to him he did try to find it to dispatch cleanly but I’m sure not all do, the majority are not a good shot and do not have the right rifle certainly not hunting propaganda . But you believe what you want to believe it’s a lot more comfortable to think shooting is instant.
 
Clodagh said:
I can only speak from my own experience. As fox hunting no longer takes place its a bit of a moot point anyway.
Click to expand...

Yes though the vexed question of pest control and the killing of vermin isn't a moot point. Shooting is next on the list of things that will be sabbed because of the fact that groups of people gather and enjoy it, even if it were entirely about pest control which on the whole it isn't. Personally I support shooting as I think there is such an investment in shooting estates and that is good for wildlife and the environment on balance. Those estates are in a place to provide improvements for the environment too. There is probably no other group in the UK who have the knowledge, wherewithal and commitment to provide support for example for wildfires and other aspects of management and on the ground environmental and wildlife support work ; that has been very well evidenced in the last couple of years.

ETA - I realise this sounds like I think shooting is about pest control primarily - which it definitely isn't!! However shooting does engage in pest control as a matter of course and it always has done.
 
mariew said:
The argument that anyone would want a sick or weak species is a bit bizarre as it looks like a long term condition to me. Surely it's better that an animal is healthy or doesn't exist at all if you can't make them better somehow. Most of the sick foxes I've seen have been in urban areas. Country side foxes have always looked fairly healthy to me.
Click to expand...

If countryside foxes are mostly healthy why don't hunts move into more urban areas if they are so concerned for foxes as a species to be healthy?

palo1 said:
Yes though the vexed question of pest control and the killing of vermin isn't a moot point. Shooting is next on the list of things that will be sabbed because of the fact that groups of people gather and enjoy it, even if it were entirely about pest control which on the whole it isn't. Personally I support shooting as I think there is such an investment in shooting estates and that is good for wildlife and the environment on balance. Those estates are in a place to provide improvements for the environment too. There is probably no other group in the UK who have the knowledge, wherewithal and commitment to provide support for example for wildfires and other aspects of management and on the ground environmental and wildlife support work ; that has been very well evidenced in the last couple of years.

ETA - I realise this sounds like I think shooting is about pest control primarily - which it definitely isn't!! However shooting does engage in pest control as a matter of course and it always has done.
Click to expand...

I think the intention in shooting is always to get a clean, swift and pretty instant kill, where as in fox hunting it is not. Could it be because of the prolonged events leading to a foxes death from fox hunting, before the ban of course, is seen by many as unnessesary and pretty gruesome to most people?

What do they do with birds they shoot?
 
palo1 said:
@ycbm - you just can't know that. In any area there are and will be animals shot poorly or with the wrong gun/ammunition. There are frequent reports about deer and other animals wounded horribly by people who are shooting without the right thing or without skill.
Click to expand...

I can't know the area and the farms and farmers where I live? Well thankyou for letting me know that, Palo, I'll bear it in mind.
.
 
palo1 said:
Shooting is next on the list of things that will be sabbed because of the fact that groups of people gather and enjoy it,
Click to expand...

That won't be why it will be sabbed. It will be sabbed because people will no longer tolerate the breeding of birds specifically for the purpose of killing them in a way which would be prosecuted if it were any other animal.
.
 
palo1 said:
ETA - I realise this sounds like I think shooting is about pest control primarily - which it definitely isn't!! However shooting does engage in pest control as a matter of course and it always has done.
Click to expand...

Which in this area has included eradication of magpie and buzzard and decimation of crows and rooks.

palo1 said:
Personally I support shooting as I think there is such an investment in shooting estates and that is good for wildlife and the environment on balance.
Click to expand...

Do you live on/near a shooting moor like I do Palo? The natural environment is completely altered by the commercial shooting, and not for the better. Monoculture creation aside, it's feckin' ugly to mow hundreds of patches in wild heather moors!
.
 
Interestingly on the Swedish moose hunting, it's cleaner but not without its issues though. Hunters prefer the glory of big antlers which belong to the older moose, so you end up with an imbalance in the distribution of the ages of the moose population, with a younger generation moose who don't get taught by the older animals what to do. And again it's not a guaranteed kill first shot.

As for the question on why hunts don't hunt in urban areas, that's kind of why I switch off when antis start ranting. Btw I'm on the fence, neither pro nor anti.
 
ycbm said:
Which in this area has included eradication of magpie and buzzard and decimation of crows and rooks.



Do you live on/ near a shooting moor like I do Palo? The natural environment is completely altered by the commercial shooting, and not for the better.
.
Click to expand...

ycbm said:
Which in this area has included eradication of magpie and buzzard and decimation of crows and rooks.



Do you live on/ near a shooting moor like I do Palo? The natural environment is completely altered by the commercial shooting, and not for the better.
.
Click to expand...

It is certainly not so commercial here but yes we have shooting estates and shot moorland in these parts. I am aware of how divisive this issue is too @ycbm but there is no other organised group of people in the UK who can in any way finance and protect vital peat moorland and other shooting habitats. There may be work to be done but without the shooting community there is not, a practical way forward to enrich and safeguard those areas. Shooting is the thing that finances their existence.
 
ycbm said:
That won't be why it will be sabbed. It will be sabbed because people will no longer tolerate the breeding of birds specifically for the purpose of killing them in a way which would be prosecuted if it were any other animal.
.
Click to expand...

Yet you are a strong advocate for the gun as a method of killing in just about every other circumstance.
 
shortstuff99 said:
Shoots near me have already been sabbed if they are on/near public land.
Click to expand...

Most moorland is now, courtesy of Blair, open access. I expect shoot sabbing to ramp up hugely in the coming years, and frankly welcome it. I cannot abide the thought of winging a bird with shot, bringing it to the ground alive and terrified, sending a dog to pick it up, so it is carried in the jaws of a predator to a human who will finally break its neck.

We would prosecute anyone killing any other animal in such a prolonged fashion.
.
 
ycbm said:
I can't know the area and the farms and farmers where I live? Well thankyou for letting me know that, Palo, I'll bear it in mind.
.
Click to expand...

It seems extraordinarily, impossibly unlikely that you are aware of every single shot animal in your locale. If you are, that is quite astounding but impressive. It seems inevitable to me that some animals in all areas of the UK are shot and wounded rather than fatally shot.
 
palo1 said:
there is no other organised group of people in the UK who can in any way finance and protect vital peat moorland and other shooting habitats. There may be work to be done but without the shooting community there is not, a practical way forward to enrich and safeguard those areas. Shooting is the thing that finances their existence.
Click to expand...

This is frankly bollocks. In 31 years, the only work that has gone on on the hundreds of hectares of local commercially shot moorland is a few days of drainage channel clearance with a JCB close to an A road. The rest of the work has consisted of fencing off a road to protect sheep and cutting square after circle after oblong in the heather to feed birds to be shot. In the areas which are not being used to raise birds, the heather/peat moor manages itself just fine with practically zero input.
.
 
ycbm said:
Because its clean, usually. Bird shooting is not. And deliberately breeding birds just to be shot is, imo, totally abhorrent.
.
Click to expand...

Well that is a very interesting road to travel...that abhorrence is about necessity I assume...which would take you right to animal farming too and then onwards to...??

I have no issue at all with veganism btw.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top