Is it me?

[severnmiles]

Or have the quality of the posts in here recently deteriorated?

I can't even be bothered to read them anymore.

It's a shame.

 

[Rachael_jack]

I was thinking the exact same thing! i can never be bothered to post anymore as all the post seem silly childish jokes between other members.

It is a shame..

 

[Nigel]

This is a hunting debate forum, trouble is there is no opposition. Then why not take the piss out of your opponents?

Cheers & Chuckles

Nigel

 

[flying_change]

You and me both. It's sunk into deep puerile. Oh well, at least I can busy myself at work.....

RS

 

[flying_change]

You know, life seems different now that I'm not arguing with you.......

 

[Ereiam_jh]

If you want to debate RS then we'd be pleased to. The trouble is the current antis on here refuse to enter into one.

What do you think about the leagues insistence that lines of guns are used during flushing out? Do you agree with that?

 

[severnmiles]

Lol! Hmmm...we did have some hum dingers....ting, ting, round 2!

These stupid names that are flooding the HD are also very tedious!

 

[severnmiles]

No, I don't (I know that question wasn't aimed at me!), that is slaughter, the fox has no 'sporting chance', just because there are a number of guns does not mean that there is any less of a chance that the fox will be injured and not killed outright. It is also not sorting the wheat from the chaff, perfectly healthy, strong, young foxes will be killed so it is not maintaining a healthy population. If you flush a vixen that is running milk in March, does the same rule apply? Does she have to be shot? If so her cubs will starve to death.

 

[flying_change]

"What do you think about the leagues insistence that lines of guns are used during flushing out? Do you agree with that? "

Is that what the league actually said ? Sorry, I didnt follow that court case word for word.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Quite severnmiles. It's a no brainer really perhaps it's hard to get a debate going on this issue because it's so obvious that the law has got it wrong.

What do you think RS

 

[flying_change]

What is the purpose of flushing and shooting foxes ?

 

[Sooty]

I think part of the problem is that the debate is getting a bit threadbare. Everything that can be said about hunting and the rights/wrongs thereof has been said many times, there is very little new ground to go over. Some members just cannot seem to post without being personally insulting, which is why I now spend less time in this forum. It used to be a lively place, now there seems to be more petty squabbling and point scoring.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Flushing is to get them out of cover, shooting is to kill them.

It's the same with deer, but I'd like to see the hunt being allowed to choose not to shoot certain deer. For example just kill older stags and let the hinds go at certain times of the year. I think it's wrong that they have to kill everything they flush.

Moreover just knowingly allowing dogs to flush out animals is illegal. This precludes my activities as I know my dogs will flush out animals if I let them loose in the woods. As I have no intent to kill I don't think what I do should be classed as hunting.

 

[Sooty]

Now that has made me chuckle!

 

[Ereiam_jh]

I do realise it's funny and I'm glad you find it so.

Wow 18288 posts!

 

[Ereiam_jh]

I think that there's a lot of talk about respect for the law. But when you point out all the things it stupidly makes illegal people will just say not to worry because you won't get prosecuted for that.

So if you think the law is stupid then don't obey it and if they think it's stupid too then they won't apply it.

Which is fine, but where's the respect for the law in all of this?

A good law makes only the thing it wants to ban illegal nothing else the Hunting Act fails to do this. It should be replaced with a law banning cruelty to wild animals.

 

[flying_change]

Why do you want to kill them ?

 

[flying_change]

Very very true !

RS

 

[Sooty]

Ah, now you know why!

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Personally, I don't want to kill wild mammals with my dogs which is why I feel that if I'm not trying to kill them what I do shouldn't be classed as hunting.

 

[flying_change]

"why I feel that if I'm not trying to kill them what I do shouldn't be classed as hunting. "

Well tough. The law would seem to say that you cant do that. Live with it. The law prohibits lots of things that I'd like to do. I want to do them, so why should they be classed as illegal ? Bottom line.. they are, and I have to live with it. You have to live with it too.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

What I'm trying to do RS is to engage you in a debate about whether the law is right, whether it should be obeyed and whether it should be enforced.

In my case neither of the latter is happening.

I'd like to know if in your opinion it is right for the law to demand that these animals are shot.

I think it's wrong, if I don't want to shoot them I shouldn't have to and I shouldn't have to stop my dogs dispersing deer as long as I stop them from chasing.

 

[flying_change]

"I'd like to know if in your opinion it is right for the law to demand that these animals are shot. "

I dont read the hunting act as demanding that animals be shot. It permits you to use dogs if you need to shoot them.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

So what are my options, either I stop taking my dogs round my own wood because I know they will flush out deer, or I shoot the deer.

If forced I would choose the latter although I'd rather not. It wouldn't be tough on me, it would be damned inconvenient and rather upsetting, it would be very tough on the deer.

Why can't I just stop the dogs chasing the deer when they get flushed out?

 

[S_N]

SImply from the title I was tempted to say "Yes, it's just you"! However, as I rarely ever come in here - you lot can be scarey when you get going - I cannot really comment (Inserts HUGE cheesey grin)

 

[severnmiles]

Scary?? I find this home! Ahhhhh. Now the Soapbox....that IS scary! :smirk:

 

[S_N]

PMSL!!!! You are more of a natural debator than I am - I just get frustrated/peed off/upset when I can't get my point across...... Hence why I don't really enter into some of 'those'] posts in the soapbox!!

 

[Ereiam_jh]

So do you think it should be illegal to flush out deer with a dog if you stop the dog from chasing the deer and don't shoot it?

 

[flying_change]

The wording of the present law suggests to me that using dogs to flush animals if there is no requirement to shoot them is illegal. If you feel that this is unfair, I suggest you lobby your MP or use pressure groups to campaign for a change in the wording of the law. At present, whether you like it or not, wehter you think it's fair or not, flushing animals in the context you describe would appear to be illegal. I suggest you keep your dogs under better control.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

I do keep my dogs under control. That's got nothing to do with stopping them flushing out deer. I stop the dogs chasing the deer. I don't really know what else can reasonably be expected of me. They are my woods if I take the bdogs through them it's innevitable that the will flush out deer. This is becayuse deer are frightened of dogs and will run out of the woods if they realise there are dogs in them.

I'm trying to find out if you agree with this aspect of the law RS it's a simple question and you are refusing to answer it.

So do you think it should be illegal to flush out deer with a dog if you stop the dog from chasing the deer and don't shoot it?

I'm sorry to repeat myself but you are not answering the question.