Lets justify Hunting for sport!:)

[JanetGeorge]

"Bring a pheasant to the ground"? Well at least you are not trying to pretend that they are all dead, just "brought to the ground", very often alive, in pursuit of, in my opinion, an utterly barbaric and indefensible sport.

And I always love that argument that you have used in your full post, that somehow conservation of moorland depends on breeding birds that don't fly very well so that people can pay very large sums of money to shoot them out of the sky half dead, then send a dog to fetch them so that someone can wring their necks to put them out of their fear and pain.

Conservation does not depend on killing animals for sport.

Now I don't HAVE to support it, I confess I am not a great fan of that branch of game shooting that relies on reared pheasants - not least because our local woodland is FULL of the ruddy birds who constantly fly out of undergrowth and spook young horses! And the ruddy things are always strutting across the roads around here, trying to cause traffic accidents!

But, conservation DOES rely VERY heavily on shooting (and to a lesser degree, ono fox hunting!)

Within easy view (and hearing!) of my farm, there are 3 game shoots - and all are responsible for a lot of conservation work on the land they have sporting rights over. Preservation of woodland, planting of fodder crops for gamebirds (which benefit hares and other species), laying and preserving hedges (on arable farms with NO livestock!) because they benefit game birds (and other species!)

And on the moors where grouse shooting takes place, it's even more important! Grouse are not 'reared' for shooting the way pheasants - and to a lesser degree - partridge are. The habitat HAS to be maintained (at considerable expense) to benefit them - and the other wildlife who live alongside them and benefit from the work done!

 

[KEF]

But both of you missed one of the most important 'duties of care' - shared by the Masters and the Huntsman - and that is to the farmers!!

MOST farmers who support hunting want foxes controlled - at very little cost to themselves! That's reasonable. And - prior to the ban - if the fox control wasn't good enough the farmers made their views known! My local hunt - some years back - had to fire a Master who was also Amateur Huntsman because - although he was a very nice guy and put a LOT of money into the hunt - he couldn't catch enough foxes to keep the farmers happy. So the farmers got together and told the Committee: "Get a huntsman who can catch foxes - or you won't be welcome!"

so, is it the case that the third party riders are only needed to fund the hunt? Surely if foxes were such a pest the farmers should pay for control themselves?

 

[Nancykitt]

Agree totally, JG.
And as for grouse, managing the moorland for the red grouse benefits the rare black grouse.

The shooting point was a bit of a digression but it was really to demonstrate the difference between a shotgun and a rifle, as the OP was clearly not aware of the difference and the suitability of a particular weapon for a particular purpose.

 

[Luci07]

Started reading the thread, gave up. Why bother asking a question if you don't like the answers and won't entertain or review the responses.!

 

[Nancykitt]

KEF, some farmers do pay lampers to control foxes on their land.

When it comes to foxhunting with hounds, the followers do fund much of the cost, as JG pointed out in an earlier post. The cost of keeping hounds is very high. The arrangement whereby a hunt would collect fallen stock to feed hounds (thus saving the farmer money) and, in return, be able to ride over that land - funded by the followers - was beneficial to everyone involved.

 

[Nancykitt]

Started reading the thread, gave up. Why bother asking a question if you don't like the answers and won't entertain or review the responses.!

My thoughts exactly.
And as it turned out, it wasn't actually about justifying hunting for sport. It was about justifying not allowing all animals to just get on with everything without any human interference whatsoever, in spite of the consequences. Ridiculous.

 

[JanetGeorge]

so, is it the case that the third party riders are only needed to fund the hunt? Surely if foxes were such a pest the farmers should pay for control themselves?

Exactly! The hunt followers are irrelevent to the actual hunting - they just enjoy watching hounds work, enjoy access to land to ride over that would not otherwise be available to them, and the social interactions! And they pay for the running of the hunt!

Foxes ARE a pest to the majority of livestock farmers. But the 'cost' of control can be quite high. You can, of course, let the local lads loose on your land to lamp foxes at night - and end up with some dead sheep before you realise you have some slap-happy lads who aren't very good at the job!! (One of the 'benefits' for a farme in allowing the hunt is that he has a good excuse to say "No thank you" to local lads who volunteer their services!!)

He could, of course, hire a 'professional' to do the job (they're in short supply - and it would be expensive - becaue for efficient lamping you need 3 people. One to drive, one to handle the lamp, and one to shoot!) And of course if the foxes are around the lambing fields, getting a clean shot can be difficult - it takes time and a good 'squeaker'.

Or the farmer could do it himself. But as most livestock farmers work a 12 hour day, 6 days a week, and 6 - 7 hours on Sunday - they need their sleep!

And most sheep farmers KNOW that the foxes most likely to prey on new-born lambs (or cast ewes) are foxes wearing wire or carrying lead shot - or those riddled with mange! Those foxes look for easy pickings! Only the hunt primarily takes out these foxes - the fit, healthy fox usually escapes (and he's the one who is fit to hunt and catch rats and rabbits!)

 

[cptrayes]

Correct Moorland management relies totally upon those who graze the land with sheep, and those that would promote the Red Grouse. Google "The Moorland Trust", and if you approach it with an enquiring and open mind, then you may come away informed. Approach it with your ill-informed, ignorant and at odds approach, and you will learn nothing.

The Red Grouse is the fastest game bird, and the most testing, in the British Isles. Grouse are not artificially reared, to suggest that they can't fly is quite preposterous, and having shot Grouse, there's a very good reason why they are charged out at such phenomenal cost, they are quite priceless!

Alec.

It does not require grouse to be shot to conserve moorland. Conservation does not require any animal to be killed for sport.

And if you think grouse are not articifically reared so that people can be charged (ten years ago that I last knew £800 a day) to shoot them, then I suggest that you talk to the people who run the shooting moors where I live.

Your sport is, in my opinion, utterly indefensible and completely barbaric. I take this viewpoint because of the lack of a clean kill, with birds brought down still alive, though I am also against the rearing of animals for no other purpose than to kill them for sport.

I find your suggestion that I take that stance from a point of ill informed ignorance and in order to be "at odds" for the sake of it to be patronising, arrogant and very insulting.





ps I have never suggested that grouse can't fly, please read what I write more carefully before you respond.

 

[happyhunter123]

And if you think grouse are not articifically reared so that people can be charged (ten years ago that I last knew £800 a day) to shoot them, then I suggest that you talk to the people who run the shooting moors where I live.
.

That is UTTER rubbish. Grouse are never reared artificially.
I know little about grouse shooting, but that much I do know.

 

[cptrayes]

And most sheep farmers KNOW that the foxes most likely to prey on new-born lambs (or cast ewes) are foxes wearing wire or carrying lead shot - or those riddled with mange! Those foxes look for easy pickings! Only the hunt primarily takes out these foxes - the fit, healthy fox usually escapes (and he's the one who is fit to hunt and catch rats and rabbits!)

Oh puhleeeze! Are you seriously suggesting that a strong healthy fox in the prime of life will decide NOT to take the easy weak lamb that's hanging around and go after more a difficult catch instead?

 

[cptrayes]

That is UTTER rubbish. Grouse are never reared artificially.
I know little about grouse shooting, but that much I do know.

I think this rather depends on your definition of "artificial". Mine is that humans intervene to ensure that there are plenty of well fed grouse to be shot at. Yours clearly differs, but since I have friends who are paid to do so, I know what I believe.

From http://www.britishmoorlands.com/grouse-management


Husbandry

Parasite and disease control
Territory management
Grit and water provision (including medicated grit)
Nutrition – over winter pre-lay
Nutrition – chick rearing to 3 weeks
Grouse population control.

 

[JanetGeorge]

It does not require grouse to be shot to conserve moorland. Conservation does not require any animal to be killed for sport.

Nope - conservation just takes money - and incentive! Why would anyone maintain grouse moors to suit grouse if there was no income to be had from the land??

Similarly, why would arable farmers retain hedgerows and small coverts (that inconvenience large machinery) for no reason??

 

[Alec Swan]

.......

.. that somehow conservation of moorland depends on breeding birds that don't fly very well so that people can pay .......

.......

ps I have never suggested that grouse can't fly, please read what I write more carefully before you respond.

and whilst we're at it, you still seem convinced that the Red Grouse is reared artificially!!

Alec.

 

[cptrayes]

Nope - conservation just takes money - and incentive! Why would anyone maintain grouse moors to suit grouse if there was no income to be had from the land??

Similarly, why would arable farmers retain hedgerows and small coverts (that inconvenience large machinery) for no reason??

My argument exactly JG. Farmers do not kill animals for sport in order to retain hedgerows.

The "we need to kill for sport to do conservation" argument never works for me and never will.

I live on shooting moors and for the life of me can't see what difference there would really be if they weren't "managed". "Mine" are too high for tree growth and have very dense coverage of heather, too dense to walk through or over, into which many ugly and disfiguring rectangles are cut so that the game birds can feed. And if the moors did change, who is to say that what they change to is "wrong" or "right"? My own viewpoint would be that for a wild peat moorland, natural is right.

 

[cptrayes]

and whilst we're at it, you still seem convinced that the Red Grouse is reared artificially!!

Alec.

Alec I have never said that grouse can't fly, as your quote clearly shows. So why you quote it is beyond me. And neither have I made any reference to Red Grouse. I know for a fact that grouse are artificially managed to be shot on the moors around me. I have friends paid to do it. What colour or breed the birds that are shot are, I care not. It is barbaric whether they are red, purple, or they are bright green with sky blue spots on.

The problem is that a substantial proportion of them are not killed clean, they fall to the floor alive to die later, often after being picked up by a dog and brought to a human to have their necks wrung. If that was any other animal it would be against the law to treat them that way.

 

[JanetGeorge]

My argument exactly JG. Farmers do not kill animals for sport in order to retain hedgerows.

The "we need to kill for sport to do conservation" argument never works for me and never will.

I live on shooting moors and for the life of me can't see what difference there would really be if they weren't "managed". "Mine" are too high for tree growth and have very dense coverage of heather, too dense to walk through or over, into which mnay ugly and disfiguring rectangles are cut so that the game birds can feed. And if the moors did change, who is to say that what they change to is "wrong" or "right"? My own viewpoint would be that for a wild peat moorland, natural is right.

You miss the point! MANY farmers retain their hedgerows and their small coverts because of their support for shooting and hunting. (And a few hunts own and maintain some very nice coverts - which benefits ALL wildlife!)

Your moors sound rather badly managed to me!!

 

[cptrayes]

Your moors sound rather badly managed to me!!

Our moors are managed by the Duke of Devonshire.

 

[cptrayes]

You miss the point! MANY farmers retain their hedgerows .......... because of their support for shooting and hunting. (And a few hunts own and maintain some very nice coverts - which benefits ALL wildlife!)

That's news to me Janet. At the presentation by Defra I went to a couple of years back they were all there learning how to manage their hedges for the EU grants that were available to them to do so. And for love of the birds that breed in them, not for the ability to shoot them. I see no connection whatsoever between hedge management on the Cheshire Plain and mass bird shooting on the Peak Moorlands.

I don't miss the point at all. The fact is that there is no requirement to kill animals for sport in order to carry out conservation.

 

[Vulpinator]

and whilst we're at it, you still seem convinced that the Red Grouse is reared artificially!!

Alec.

Alec I've been reading this thread for ages and been keeping an eye on the very interlectual conversation that has gone on here.

I'm now convinced that some people on this debate live in a parallel universe, one has to assume, by the way they comment
on ways of the countryside been educated at university.

Unfortunateley we were educated in and around the countryside and therefore know nothing, understand nothing, as far as I'm concerned long may that be so. I for one dont want to be as educated as these intelectuals.

Long live being as thick as a brick. cos I can read and I can write, but I can drive a tractor.

 

[JanetGeorge]

Alec I have never said that grouse can't fly, as your quote clearly shows. So why you quote it is beyond me. And neither have I made any reference to Red Grouse. I know for a fact that grouse are artificially managed to be shot on the moors around me. I have friends paid to do it. What colour or breed the birds that are shot are, I care not. It is barbaric whether they are red, purple, or they are bright green with sky blue spots on.

You said: "that somehow conservation of moorland depends on breeding birds that don't fly very well so that people can pay ......."

Grouse fly very well indeed - at speeds of up to 80MPH! That's what makes them extremely challenging to shoot!

And when you talk 'grouse', you will be assumed to be referring to Red Grouse - as they are the ones that live pretty much exclusively on moorland only, and are the ones that are most numerous. Black Grouse used to live just about everywhere, but their requirements of their habitat is MUCH more diverse and they are now endangered. The only place where you find them now is the fringes of the grouse moors, where efforts are made to provide them with the mixed habitat they need!

If you are talking the Duke of Devonshire's moors, then they ARE well managed - and it is the moors that are managed to suit the grouse - the grouse are not being 'artificially managed'! Without the management of the grouse moors, the red grouse would have followed their black cousins to near extinction!

And - of course - the management of the moorland is JUST as important to a number of other endangered species of birds for whom the moors are an important breeding and/or feeding habitat! Eleven of these species appear on the UK's Red List of bird species of greatest conservation concern. A further 21 are on the Amber list! They ALL benefit from the proper management of the heather! And grouse shooting pays for the management!

If a few grouse fall from the skies wounded and have to be picked up and despatched, it is - frankly - a small price to pay!

 

[Alec Swan]

Alec I have never said that grouse can't fly,

.......

Re-read post 283. I've quoted you, never mind, we'll set that aside, it isn't important, and it isn't about point scoring either, it's about establishing reason.

What matters is that you come away with an understanding. YES of course I'm being arrogant and displaying all the other traits which you hate about me, but that's only in the face of your lack of understanding, and your increasingly frustrating refusal to BLOODY WELL LISTEN!!


From http://www.britishmoorlands.com/grouse-management

Husbandry

Parasite and disease control
Territory management
Grit and water provision (including medicated grit)
Nutrition – over winter pre-lay
Nutrition – chick rearing to 3 weeks
Grouse population control.


The provision of protein to the new brood has nothing to do with intervention, by artificial rearing. It's everything to do with establishing nutrition for the Red Grouse and It's about assisting the laying, brooding and rearing parents, in anyway that we can. The Red Grouse is subject to, and prone to Looping Ill and Strongyllosis. Parasite control, by medicated grit is a huge step in the right direction, but more than that, the provision of bright, new, and clean heather shoots, during the Autumn Flush, and the Spring Flush too is a way of assisting with Grouse management. generally the new heather growth is promoted by burning off the old stock.

OF COURSE those who do it have an ulterior motive. Those who want our Moorlands as they once were should understand that they were in that happy state because of Grouse shooting. We have by management, but NOT by artificial rearing, encouraged the Red Grouse.

Ban all shooting, ban all sheep management, and then look at the unholy mess that you will create.

CPT, I'm not a barbarian. I care and am passionate about our environment, but for all the good work which is done by conservationists, those who offer an input of value, I find it ever more frustrating to be told that I don't know what I'm talking about, and such comments, all so often come from those who live a theorised existence.

I've already bid one person "Good night", and now this I shall offer to you.

Alec.

 

[elliebrewer98]

When I see a hunt, I do not see sombre faces.

That is because hunting is an sociable pastime for friends and strangers alike to converse together and enjoy, that's is what the true meaning of hunting is!

 

[elliebrewer98]

Amazing, 240 posts!!!!! Why do we get drawn in by a question like 'Lets justify Hunting for sport!'? The fact it's been asked probably means that whatever a pro-hunting person will say will be (at least there will be an attempt at) 'shot down'. There really is no end to this type of thread......

That's exactly what I thought when I read the first post, the people who start these threads are bloody ridiculous!

 

[Starbucks]

Well lets justify eating meat? Do you understand what that means? Do you know how many pigs, chickens etc. have no life due to intesnive farming?

Lets justify milk farming, have you seen old, lame, milk cows walking down the lane, who've just had their baby taken from them??

Lets justify shooting, oh no, that's fine because we eat them. yeah right.

Lets justify women having HRT from mares having to have babies every year so we can stick things in their uterous to get their wee

Lets justify all the stray, thin dogs all around the world, the working donkeys and horses

I hunt, and I love animals. Fox's have a good life and if they get killed by a hound they get a quick death. I feel much less bad about hunting than any of the above.

 

[bubbilygum]

Started reading the thread, gave up. Why bother asking a question if you don't like the answers and won't entertain or review the responses.!

I have enjoyed the debate on this thread but I have to agree with this - I've never seen a thread whereby the OP actively ignores responses they don't like and continues to promote arguments that have been disproven many times by many different contributors. It is somewhere between entertaining and frustrating!

 

[KEF]

Well lets justify eating meat? Do you understand what that means? Do you know how many pigs, chickens etc. have no life due to intesnive farming?

Lets justify milk farming, have you seen old, lame, milk cows walking down the lane, who've just had their baby taken from them??

Lets justify shooting, oh no, that's fine because we eat them. yeah right.

Lets justify women having HRT from mares having to have babies every year so we can stick things in their uterous to get their wee

Lets justify all the stray, thin dogs all around the world, the working donkeys and horses

I hunt, and I love animals. Fox's have a good life and if they get killed by a hound they get a quick death. I feel much less bad about hunting than any of the above.

The problem with this argument is that you are aligning hunting with the above. You are suggesting that hunting is acceptable because it's not as bad as the above. Is this what you intend?

 

[Alec Swan]

The problem with this argument is that you are aligning hunting with the above. You are suggesting that hunting is acceptable because it's not as bad as the above. Is this what you intend?

Are we to assume that you have an alternative argument?

Alec.

 

[Luci07]

Oh puhleeeze! Are you seriously suggesting that a strong healthy fox in the prime of life will decide NOT to take the easy weak lamb that's hanging around and go after more a difficult catch instead?

You say weak and easy, don't you mean " newborn and vulnerable" ?

 

[KEF]

That is because hunting is an sociable pastime for friends and strangers alike to converse together and enjoy, that's is what the true meaning of hunting is!

I am not sure some of your fellow hunters would agree who have been at pains to suggest that it is taken more seriously than this.

 

[KEF]

Are we to assume that you have an alternative argument?

Alec.

If my only argument in support of something was to point to things that are worse/perceived as worse, I would have to question the thing I was supporting. That's all. There are better arguments within this thread and to say hunting is ok because it's not as bad as battery farming or because other animals kill unnecessarily makes for a weak position, I am sure you would agree. I am interested in the debate because personally, I don't think you can have an opinion about something unless you understand the pro's and cons.